Can Police Track Your Phone?

January 8, 2021

By Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

www.texasdefensefirm.com

The short answer is yes – but there are ever increasing legal hurdles in law enforcement’s way.  The issue is highly complex, evolving and will continue to evolve as technology changes society.  No page-long blog will do the topic justice but I hope to give you at least a basic legal primer.

The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution is your right to be free from “unreasonable” searches and seizures from your government.  Tracking a person’s phone either in real-time or after the fact has been the subject of intense legal scrutiny for some time now.

Is Tracking Your Phone a Search Within the Meaning of the 4th Amendment?

Courts agree inspecting the contents of your phone, wiretapping a phone call, or affixing a GPS monitor to a persons vehicle are “searches” within the meaning of the 4th amendment.  It’s taken some time for courts establish these norms but they have all one by one been accepted.

Much of what constitutes a “search” hinges on what we consider our own “expectation of privacy.”  We all have a much higher expectation of privacy in our night stand drawer than in our bag we’re bringing on a plane.  So the courts have had to answer the question of where does the smart-phone and the information rank between the two extremes?

The answer is different today than it was in 2005 because of the advances in technology and because of our reliance on smart device technology… and because of both of those things we have different expectations of what is or isn’t private about our phones.

Courts now recognize the contents of our phones today contain work information, banking information, medical information, information about the books we read, the historical figures we admire, who we’re angry with in our family, where we’ve been, where we plan on going in three months or in an hour…  In short we have developed an intense dependency and sense of privacy about our phones and the courts know this to be true.

Is Tracking a Phone an “Unreasonable” Search?

Again – what is reasonable changes.  A “reasonable” search at an airport on September 12, 2001 might not have been considered as such on September 10, 2001.  Our more intense reliance and privacy with the phones make them harder and harder for police to justify tracking or searching.

But understand an “unreasonable” search becomes reasonable if law enforcement can legally and procedurally justify attaining whatever it is they’re looking for.  The legal question is just how much justification do they need and whether it requires attaining a warrant?

What Information Can Police Attain About Your Phone & How They Get It

I’m not a technology expert so I don’t know what and how the police can track.  I’m sure if they’re not tracking phones in real time already then at some point I’m sure there will be the capability for them to do that.  Probation departments and supervision departments can require either software or hardware downloads which allows them to track usage – but that’s not the same thing because in those instances the individual knows – and has often agreed – to being tracked.

Phone Dumps and Downloads

The law is more clear in this area – police need a warrant to get into your phone if you don’t consent to it being searched.  What they can get once they get in your phone is a technology question which I don’t have the qualifications to answer… but I’m sure this is an evolving cat and mouse game like everything else in the law/ technology realm.

Records

Police can and often do obtain records from data providers and other third parties such as apps from their private offices.  The mechanisms may vary from State to State but the providers may be able to voluntarily provide records to law enforcement based on the terms and conditions of the usage – or as is more often the case – law enforcement can subpoena the records.  In some instances the federal government requires third parties to report certain activity to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Also, third parties who may have records the police want such as Facebook or Twitter or some of your other tech giants can be extraordinarily difficult to deal with for both law enforcement and the defense due to nothing more than their sheer size, amount of data they mine, and amount of users they have.  They have legal compliance departments but even Court Orders have the ability to sit in someone’s pile or in-box for who knows how long.

Courts are moving in the direction of requiring warrants to accompany the requests but this is an intensely complex and evolving area of the law.  Many of the third-party companies host apps and aren’t in the United States.  This adds yet another layer of complexity.

Bottom Line

For the police or law enforcement to track your phone after the fact or in real time is currently and will be one of the great battle-lines in courtrooms for the 21st century going forward.  This question is truly the convergence and intersection between radically evolving civil liberties and radically evolving technological capabilities.

Stay tuned.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is certified in criminal law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He is recognized as a Texas Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.

 

 

 

 

 

Comments Off on Can Police Track Your Phone? | Civil Liberties, Computer Crimes, crimes against children, Divorce related crimes, Federal Court, federal criminal defense, Murder, Police, Police and Prosecutors, sex cases, sex crimes, Sexual Abuse of a Child, Uncategorized, Vehicular Homicide | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by niftybrady

My Lawyer is Not Fighting For Me….

January 7, 2021

By Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

www.texasdefensefirm.com

Your lawyer is fighting for you.  At least I hope they are.

What Your Lawyers Job Is – and Isn’t

A lawyer has a duty to zealously advocate for their client.  A lawyer cannot, though, just go bananas for the sake of going bananas.  Lawyers have other duties which often compete with their duty to zealously advocate for their client.

Here is a relevant passage in the Preamble Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct:

2. As a representative of clients, a lawyer performs various functions. As advisor, a lawyer provides a client with an informed understanding of the client’s legal rights and obligations and explains their practical implications. As advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client’s position under the rules of the adversary system. As negotiator, a lawyer seeks a result advantageous to the client but consistent with requirements of honest dealing with others. As intermediary between clients, a lawyer seeks to reconcile their divergent interests as an advisor and, to a limited extent, as a spokesperson for each client. A lawyer acts as evaluator by examining a client’s affairs and reporting about them to the client or to others.

Note zealous advocacy is sandwiched between other roles of the attorney.  The lawyer also has to give the client an informed understanding of their rights and obligations.  The lawyer must seek advantageous results consistent with the honest dealing with others.

Fighting for and advocating for a client is only a fraction of the lawyer’s job.  Much of the lawyers role is informing, educating, and advising clients.  Also, much of a lawyers job hinges on ethical obligations to judges and other lawyers… our system wouldn’t work if everyone got to go berserk.

A lawyer’s job isn’t to tell you everything you want to hear, either.  Many times folks will understandably want to shoot the messenger.

Giving Your Lawyer the Benefit of the Doubt

I’ve had many clients over the years who like seeing or thinking I’m being aggressive.  But not every situation calls for aggressiveness…. and just because the client thinks I’m not being assertive, zealous, or aggressive doesn’t mean I’m not either.

Often folks looking to switch lawyers will visit with me – and I always make an effort to try and see the situation their lawyer’s way.  That lawyer usually knows much more about the case than I do to that point and it’s arrogant of me to think otherwise.

When You Should Worry About Your Lawyer’s Efforts

First – you should be comfortable with direction of your representation.  If you can’t sleep at night worried sick about your lawyer and nothing they do or say helps then by all means find another lawyer whose representation you’re more at ease with.  Again, though, it’s not your lawyers job to tell you only news you like or that you want to hear.  It’s probably a worse mistake to shop, and shop, and shop for a lawyer until you find someone who magically agrees with everything you say.

Some lawyers can be intimidated by certain cases.  Is your lawyer constantly looking for reasons to back down?  When your lawyer does shy away from a difficult hearing, trial or other proceeding – do they have a detailed reason which makes sense?  In criminal cases – how often does your lawyer go to trial?  If it’s not on a regular basis then maybe that is a red flag.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is certified in criminal law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He is recognized as a Texas Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.

 

Comments Off on My Lawyer is Not Fighting For Me…. | Civil Liberties, Collateral Consequences of a Criminal Record, Police and Prosecutors, pre trial diversion, Trial Advocacy | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by niftybrady

Will a DWI Ruin My Life?

January 6, 2021

By McKinney Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

www.texasdefensefirm.com

Driving while intoxicated convictions are very intensive with consequences that are far ranging.  Most of the consequences are what lawyers and courts refer to as “direct” consequences.  This means we know what those consequences are and we can see them coming.

Indirect consequences are much more difficult to calculate.  An example of a direct consequence of a drunk driving conviction is the potential for probation or an interlock device on a car.  The law requires it.

An indirect consequence, on the other hand, is what will your boss think.  That’s the hard part to know.

Common Direct Consequences of a DWI Conviction

The punishment for a Driving While Intoxicated Offense in Texas is This:

  • Up to 2 years probation for misdemeanors (DWI 1st or 2nd);
  • Up to 180 days jail for DWI 1st with blood alcohol under (BAC) 0.15;
  • Up to 1 year of jail for DWI 1st with BAC 0.15 or greater;
  • Up to 1 year of jail for DWI 2nd;

Other requirements for DWI probation (direct consequences) are the inability to terminate probation early, the requirement for interlock devices for DWI 2nd or more or if the BAC is greater than 0.15.  There is a new “superfine” the legislature requires if a person is sentenced to jail on a driving under the influence case of $6,000.

Indirect Consequences Which Can Be Harmful to a Career

There are certain professions where a DWI affects you and some where they don’t.  If you drive a school bus then a DWI is bad news.  If you are law enforcement or a first responder, then again – it will cause you problems.  Pilots obviously have major headaches with DWI arrests with the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”).

But what if you’re a doctor or a registered nurse?  You could have licensing issues because the boards which regulate physicians and/or nurses in Austin will want to make sure there aren’t underlying substance issues.

There are some professions which simply don’t have much of an intersection with DWI arrests.  If you are a CPA, a hairdresser, or even an attorney – a misdemeanor DWI shouldn’t do you much professional harm.

But remember a criminal conviction is permission for someone to discriminate.  Is it possible you could lose a job working at a bank because of a DWI arrest or conviction?  I would hope not – but if your boss was a victim of a drunk driver then potentially it could happen.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is certified in criminal law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He is recognized as a Texas Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.

 

Comments Off on Will a DWI Ruin My Life? | Collateral Consequences of a Criminal Record, DWI, Police and Prosecutors, Uncategorized, Vehicular Homicide | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by niftybrady

Probation Officer Recommendations

January 5, 2021

By Collin County Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

www.texasdefensefirm.com

Probation officers are often the gatekeepers between their probationers and ultimate freedom.  Probation officers are often asked about recommendations for things like travel, removal of an interlock ignition or deep lung device from a vehicle in DWI cases, or even early release from probation.

When folks visit with me wanting to change something about their probation, it’s very common for them to tell me their probation officer is “not opposed,” or “on board with” or even “recommends” something.

In truth – when I do pick up the phone to ask the probation officer their views I hardly ever get much of anything useful.  I’m usually told the probation department opposes our request to the judge or takes no position on our request to the judge (usually citing department policy).  I can’t remember the last time a probation officer actually told me they supported our motion.

Probation officers also make recommendations for revocations and adjudications.  It’s a bit of a different topic – but remember it is the Judge who ultimately determines what happens in a case, not the probation department.

Probation Officers Don’t Like Making Recommendations

Probation officers work in a bureaucracy. I’ve been in the Army, the District Attorney’s Office, and and have worked alongside government my entire career.  My blog is anything but political but probation departments with their bureaucracies come with some flawed cultures I’ve noticed.

I find there are three cultural problems I’ve seen with probation departments struggle with.  First, there is a climate of fear surrounding decision making.  Personnel are collectively intimidated about sticking their neck-out and making an uncommon or unconventional decision which has any potential at all to backfire.

Second, there is a “default to no” culture at most probation departments.  This means the default answer requests is typically “no.”  The answer is “no” if they don’t understand the request, “no” if they are 50/50 on the request, and especially the answer is “no” if they find a teeny-tiny reason the request could somehow backfire.

Third, if one decision maker is good – then seven are better.  And then they’ll come up with better reasons for saying “no.”

I’m probably jaded, but my view is probation officers simply don’t want to make decisions or recommendations which help their probationers.  They might claim to be in support in closed quarters with no one listening but they often quickly back off any such boldness.  They often claim they are bound not to make recommendations by office policy.  That could be true in some instances but those policies have never limited them from making recommendations against my clients… so I tend to view the policies skeptically.

Often I find a probation officer will claim they are not taking a position – yet they passive/aggressively oppose our requests in open court.  So I never take for granted they are in our corner or neutral on an issue.

I know I’m making many generalizations here.  There are plenty of probation officers I’ve worked with who break this mold and are very forthcoming on their views whether they are helpful or not to my client.

A Probation Officer’s Recommendation Isn’t Everything

It’s okay probation officers if don’t want to make recommendations.  Judges are comfortable making difficult calls granting things the probation department doesn’t like or want.

It’s the Judge who controls terms and conditions of probation – and Judges disagree with probation officers all the time.  Many judges have far more antagonistic relationships with the probation department than you may think.

For these reasons when I’m asked to help someone modify their probation – I just don’t put much stock in what the probation officer reportedly recommends.  If they are in our corner all the better.  But we can still win without it.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is certified in criminal law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He is recognized as a Texas Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.

 

Comments Off on Probation Officer Recommendations | Assault, Cannabis, Computer Crimes, crimes against children, Domestic Violence, Drugs, marijuana, Police and Prosecutors, pre trial diversion, probation, Probation Revocation | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by niftybrady

When Being Drunk is a Crime & When it’s a Defense to a Crime

January 2, 2021

By Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeremy Rosenthal

(972) 369-0577

www.texasdefensefirm.com

When Being Drunk is a Crime

The rule of thumb with intoxication in Texas is this:  it’s perfectly legal until you’re dangerous.  The threshold changes depending on what you’re doing.

For public intoxication (a fine-only offense) you’re guilty if you’re dangerous to yourself or others just being in public.

For driving while intoxicated it’s if you’re dangerous being behind the wheel of a motor vehicle which weighs a few tons and can go 100 mph.  DWI offenses range from class b misdemeanors (up to 180 days county jail) to 2nd degree felonies for intoxicated manslaughter (2 to 20 years in prison).

When Being Drunk is a Defense to a Crime

Voluntary intoxication is specifically excluded as a defense to a crime in Texas under Tex.Pen.C. 8.04.  Involuntary intoxication may be a defense – but it is extremely rare and difficult to prove.

This topic gets very legally complex very fast – so I’ll do my best to help it make sense.

Intoxication normally goes to undermine the “intent” requirement of most crimes.  If a person is intoxicated, then, they might not have intended to commit whatever crime, right?  The answer would depend on if the person intended to ingest something intoxicating or not — or if they ingested something via fraud or distress rendering the intoxication involuntary.

Adding another layer of confusion is this: not all crimes require intent anyways.  So drunk or not if the person did the criminal act then they are guilty.  Examples would could be statutory rape, selling alcohol to a minor or even speeding.  The prosecution doesn’t have to prove what you intended in those cases – much less whether a person was in their right state of mind.

Probably the easiest way to summarize this is through a few examples:

  • DWI Where drug was unknowingly put into someone’s drink:
    • Not a defense;
    • There is no “intent” requirement in drunk driving cases so even if it were “involuntary” intoxication it wouldn’t matter.
  • Theft where person was impaired due to prescription drugs;
    • Not a defense
    • The intoxication would be considered “voluntary” even if the person didn’t fully understand the impact of the medication or the medication had an unpredictable outcome.
      • The issue is whether the person “voluntarily” ingested the medication.
  • Robbery where a person had a cup of water spiked with an unknown intoxicant;
    • This would be a rare example of involuntary intoxication being a defense;
      • The impairment was caused by fraud;
      • The involuntary impairment negates the intent element required in robbery.

The effect of intoxication in cases can be obvious in most instances and legally complex in others.

*Jeremy Rosenthal is certified in criminal law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He is recognized as a Super Lawyer by Thomson Reuters.

Comments Off on When Being Drunk is a Crime & When it’s a Defense to a Crime | Computer Crimes, crimes against children, Divorce related crimes, Domestic Violence, Drugs, DWI, Police, Police and Prosecutors, Robbery, sex cases, Theft, Uncategorized, Vehicular Homicide | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by niftybrady

« Previous Entries