Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 04:44 PM Jun 2013

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) - No warrant required for call metadata

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. The pen register was installed on telephone company property at the telephone company's central offices. In the Majority opinion, Justice Blackmun rejected the idea that the installation and use of a pen registry constitutes a violation of the "legitimate expectation of privacy" since the numbers would be available to and recorded by the phone company anyway.
Background

In Katz v. United States (1967), the United States Supreme Court established its "reasonable expectation of privacy" test. It overturned Olmstead v. United States and held that wiretaps were unconstitutional searches, because there was a reasonable expectation that the communication would be private. The government was then required to get a warrant to execute a wiretap.

In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that a pen register is not a search because the "petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company." Since the defendant had disclosed the dialed numbers to the telephone company so they could connect his call, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers he dialed. The court did not distinguish between disclosing the numbers to a human operator or just the automatic equipment used by the telephone company.
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) - No warrant required for call metadata (Original Post) jberryhill Jun 2013 OP
This is simply a problem with the SCOTUS not keeping up with technology derby378 Jun 2013 #1
Kick! n/t ProSense Jun 2013 #2
It was a 5-2 decision with Brennan and Powell not voting. Laelth Jun 2013 #3
FCUK FACTS!!! We hate them, better to listen to the M$M...they never steer us wrong dangit!!! uponit7771 Jun 2013 #4
the medatada was collected for 3 days, against a man suspected of a crime veveto Aug 2014 #5

derby378

(30,252 posts)
1. This is simply a problem with the SCOTUS not keeping up with technology
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 04:48 PM
Jun 2013

The trend in Constitutional law needs to be towards more privacy and freedom, not less.

Laelth

(32,017 posts)
3. It was a 5-2 decision with Brennan and Powell not voting.
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 09:38 AM
Jun 2013

Most likely Brennan would have sided with the minority. Not so sure about Powell.

I agree with those who say the Court probably would have ruled differently on a sweeping database that captures the meta-data of all calls coming in and out of the United States. That's very different from a pin register on one call center in one state where the police were trying to capture info. on one, identified suspect. Ultimately, we need guidance from our current SCOTUS on this issue. Sadly, there's no appeal process available from FISA Court rulings, afaik, so the SCOTUS has not had a chance to chime in (and they're probably avoiding this issue because it is a hot potato).

-Laelth

 

veveto

(11 posts)
5. the medatada was collected for 3 days, against a man suspected of a crime
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 08:12 PM
Aug 2014

Today's issue involves bulk collection of metadata, against millions not suspected of anything.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Smith v. Maryland, 442 U....