Court holds police had right to ping suspect’s cellphone without warrant

With Sprint’s help, police were able to locate a murder suspect in Springfield, Vt., and arrest him.

www.wsj.com    

Court Holds Police Had Right to Ping Suspect’s Cellphone Without Warrant Ruling points to exception to Fourth Amendment that allows police to bypass warrant in emergencies The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled Monday that the tracking of Frank Caraballo’s cellphones fell within a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that allows police to bypass a warrant in emergencies. ENLARGE The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled Monday that the tracking of Frank Caraballo’s cellphones fell within a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that allows police to bypass a warrant in emergencies. PHOTO: DON EMMERT/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES By JOE PALAZZOLO Aug. 1, 2016 2:33 p.m. ET 1 COMMENTS A federal appeals court held Monday that “exigent circumstances” permitted Vermont police to obtain the GPS location of a suspected killer’s cellphones without a warrant, sidestepping a ruling on the larger debate over the legality of tracking people through their devices in real time. The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled that the tracking of Frank Caraballo’s cellphones fell within a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that allows police to bypass a warrant in emergencies. Mr. Caraballo, the target of a drug-trafficking investigation, was arrested hours after authorities discovered the body of Melissa Barratt near the town limits of Brattleboro, Vt., in July 2011, according to the ruling. RELATED Reporter’s Detention Fuels Debate Over Cellphone Searches (July 22, 2016) No Warrant Required for Phone Location Records, Court Rules (April 13, 2016) Appeals Court Ruling Sets Higher Bar for Cellphone Searches (Aug. 5, 2015) Court Rules Police Need a Warrant To Track Cellphones (June 11, 2014) Ms. Barratt was killed execution style, with a gunshot to the back of the head. Weeks earlier, state police had arrested Ms. Barratt for selling drugs for Mr. Caraballo and had sought her cooperation in the investigation of him, but she refused, saying she was afraid he would find out and kill her, according to the Second Circuit ruling. Suspecting Mr. Caraballo’s involvement in Ms. Barratt’s death, police asked Sprint Corp. to “ping” his cellphones, triangulating their position with network satellites. They considered seeking a warrant but concluded it would take too much time, according to Monday’s ruling. Authorities worried that undercover officers and informants who had been investigating Mr. Caraballo’s narcotics-dealing could be at risk, and that evidence linking him to Ms. Barratt’s killing, such as gunshot residue and DNA, would disappear if they didn’t find him quickly, according to the ruling. With Sprint’s help, police located Mr. Caraballo in Springfield, Vt., and arrested him. He was charged in 2012 in connection with Ms. Barratt’s murder and sought to have evidence against him suppressed, arguing that it was tainted by the warrantless pinging of his phone in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. A federal trial judge denied his request. Mr. Caraballo was convicted at trial and sentenced in 2014 to 40 years in prison. He then appealed to the Second Circuit. Service providers can point police to the general vicinity of cellphones with records that are automatically created when phones connect to nearby cell towers. Several federal appeals courts have held that police don’t need a warrant for those records, which are often used by investigators after the fact as evidence that a suspect was at or near a crime scene. GPS tracking is more precise—to within a few meters—and the law surrounding it is less settled, with some state high courts and federal magistrate judges requiring a warrant and one federal appeals court ruling that no warrant is required for short-term tracking, said Nathan Freed Wessler, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. The Second Circuit declined to wade into the debate, ruling that Vermont authorities acted within an exception to the warrant requirement that courts have carved for situations that present police with “an urgent need to render aid or take action.” “Because we conclude that exigent circumstances justified the officers’ pinging of Caraballo’s phone, we need not today resolve this important and complex Fourth Amendment question,” wrote Judge Guido Calabresi, on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the Second Circuit. Paul Van de Graaf, an assistant U.S. attorney in Vermont who prosecuted the case, declined to comment on the ruling. Natasha Sen, a lawyer for Mr. Caraballo, had no immediate comment. Write to Joe Palazzolo at joe.palazzolo@wsj.com