Crocker and Lynch urge warrants for all cellphone tracking
Andrew CrockerEFF attorney, coauthor with Jennifer Lynch
Crocker and Lynch welcome Carpenter and argue that even short periods of cellphone tracking should require a warrant.
“We think the right rule is to require a warrant for any cell phone tracking”
Analysis
Where this statement fits
Carpenter: Roberts and Kennedy split over police access to cellphone location records
In June 2018, the Supreme Court ruled five to four that obtaining Timothy Carpenter's historical cellphone location records was a search and generally required a warrant. Chief Justice John Roberts stressed the reach of location surveillance. Justice Anthony Kennedy dissented, arguing that the government obtained the carriers' business records rather than searching Carpenter's property.
Source and context
Analysis
About this source
Andrew Crocker and Jennifer Lynch welcome the ruling in an EFF essay. They advocate a warrant rule for all cellphone tracking, beyond the period resolved by the Court.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
In their June 22 essay, Crocker and Jennifer Lynch discuss the Court's decision to leave tracking periods shorter than seven days unresolved.
After the quotation
They anticipate further challenges to surveillance using records held by third parties.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Relative to warrantless acquisition of cellphone location records, the coauthors advocate warrant protection for every tracking period.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseKerr rejects Carpenter's privacy holding but says a warrant rule largely follows if that holding is accepted
“I think Carpenter’s search holding is wrong. In my view, users don’t have Fourth Amendment rights in their historical cell-site records. But if you accept that erroneous holding as correct, and you then need to figure out what the reasonableness standard is for compelling access, I think something like the majority’s rule, in which the target is still ultimately protected by the same protections that would apply if the information were locally stored, is probably right.”Read statement
Wessler rejects the claim that using technology removes Fourth Amendment protection
“The government can no longer claim that the mere act of using technology eliminates the Fourth Amendment’s protections.”Read statement
Anthony Kennedy defends obtaining carrier business records
“The Court has twice held that individuals have no Fourth Amendment interests in business records which are possessed, owned, and controlled by a third party. United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435 (1976); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735 (1979). This is true even when the records contain personal and sensitive information.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Crocker and Lynch urge warrants for all cellphone tracking
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/7103-crocker-and-lynch-welcome-carpenter-and-argue-that
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Crocker and Lynch urge warrants for all cellphone tracking". First published: 2026-10-28. Last updated: 2026-10-28. https://disputeindex.com/events/7103-crocker-and-lynch-welcome-carpenter-and-argue-that