Cellphone Location Bill in Missouri Could Raise Privacy Issues
A Missouri bill could walk the line between public safety and individual privacy rights, officials said. HB-1108 (http://xrl.us/bmqpxh) requires wireless carriers to provide a missing person’s cellphone location to law enforcement when that person is in “danger of death or serious physical injury.” Testimony was heard by the House Committee of Utilities for the bill, which is similar to other legislation presented in the state three previous times. Those bills passed in the house but did not make it through the senate.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The bill requires that carriers perform a “ping locate" which uses cellphone signals to track down a caller’s location. The bill says they “shall provide” that information when law enforcement requires it for cases where a missing person is in danger of serious injury or death. It also protects cellphone providers from legal action for providing that information under the requirements of the bill. There’s a similar law already in place in Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, New Hampshire and North Dakota.
"We have history and tracking that shows that this legislation is great,” said the bill sponsor, Rep. Jeanie Lauer (R-Blue Springs), as quoted in a MissouriNet.com article. “It’s in other states and it is time for Missouri to step up to the plate.” There was no testimony against the bill at the hearing of the House Committee of Utilities.
Under Missouri law, providers can give location information to law enforcement if they choose to do so, said Kansas/Western Missouri ACLU Legal Director Doug Bonney. The bill would change it from they “may” give up the information to they “shall.” The government should not have the authority to require companies to give up such information, he said.
Bonney is skeptical that law enforcement officers would only act in the emergencies listed in the bill. He wonders how anyone will know if law enforcement is really staying true to the requirements of the bill or if they are using it as justification to access the information, possibly to track down criminals.
Individuals have a constitutional right to reasonable expectation of privacy, said EPIC Appellate Advocacy Fellow Alan Butler. But cellphone tracking could be constitutional in certain case-by-case situations, he said. Safety could overrule the right to privacy of location if law enforcement were using that information to help someone who is in danger. But law enforcement should be careful when using safety as a justification, Butler said. They shouldn’t use this cellphone tracking to track down criminals by saying they are “missing persons."
There is also an issue of people who want to disappear, said Christopher Calabrese, with the ACLU Legislative Counsel. Law enforcement officials should only use the location for people in immediate danger, he said, and if someone they find wants their whereabouts to remain unknown, officials should respect that, he said.
Getting individuals location information should require a warrant under most circumstances, Calabrese said. It’s important to balance the individuals’ needs to have privacy with law enforcement’s need to provide protection, he said.
If the bill is passed, law enforcement officials should keep a record to show they're acting correctly under the statute, Calabrese said. They can do that by keeping accurate documentation of what they do when emergencies arise, he said. They should record why they considered it an emergency and felt they needed the location information and what actions they took to ensure they don’t abuse the requirement, he said.