ICE Surveillance Dragnet: Government Agencies Bypassing the Fourth Amendment through Third-Party Vendors

-- By BrayanArreola - 21 Mar 2024

INTRODUCTION

The procurement of location data by government entities such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection from commercial sources has sparked a significant debate over civil liberties in the United States. This practice, which allows for enhanced surveillance capabilities without the traditional legal oversight, raises profound concerns regarding privacy rights, especially among U.S. citizens, legal residents, and undocumented immigrants. The controversy centers on ICE's utilization of such data to enforce immigration laws aggressively, including tracking immigrants via driver's licenses, utility records, and cell phone locations without obtaining warrants. This paper explores the legal ambiguities surrounding these practices, focusing on their implications for the Latino community, and advocates for extending the protections established in the Supreme Court's Carpenter v. United States decision to require warrants for the acquisition of location data, ensuring constitutional safeguards against unreasonable searches.

ICE's Surveillance Dragnet and its Effects on the Latino Community

Over the period from 2008 to 2021, ICE has allocated nearly $2.8 billion toward surveillance and data collection efforts, profoundly affecting the Latino community through increased tracking and deportation actions. The agency's surveillance framework, augmented through acquisitions of data from Venntel Inc. and employing advanced spyware from Palantir Technologies, facilitates the tracking of individuals based on their digital footprint and physical movements. This capability enables ICE to efficiently identify, detain, and deport people, disproportionately impacting Latino individuals.

The further procurement of data from third-party vendors such as Thomson Reuters and Lexis Nexis aggravates these issues by providing ICE with unrestricted access to DMV and utility records, bypassing the need for warrants. This is particularly problematic in states that issue driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants, thereby placing a significant segment of the Latino community in jeopardy. The essential nature of services like driving and utilities puts undocumented individuals in a precarious dilemma, having to choose between their safety and fulfilling their basic needs. Consequently, this surveillance network infringes not only on privacy rights but also severely impacts the well-being and security of the Latino community, raising critical questions about the balance between law enforcement and civil liberties.

Fourth Amendment Protection: Reasonable Expectation of Privacy and the Third-Party Doctrine

The Fourth Amendment offers protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, mandating warrants supported by probable cause. The Katz v. United States case established the criteria for a reasonable expectation of privacy, comprising an individual's subjective anticipation of privacy and the societal recognition of that expectation as reasonable. This protection extends to undocumented migrants, affirming their rights under the Fourth Amendment.

The Third-Party Doctrine, which historically permitted the government to access information shared with third parties without a warrant, is predicated on the notion that individuals forfeit their privacy expectations upon disclosing information to others. Nevertheless, the digital age has prompted a reevaluation of this doctrine, leading to heightened privacy protections against third-party disclosures. In Riley v. California, the Supreme Court ruled that warrantless searches of digital information on cell phones infringe on Fourth Amendment rights. Similarly, United States v. Jones dealt with privacy concerns related to GPS tracking, with the Court concluding that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle without a warrant constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The landmark Carpenter v. United States decision further refined these principles, applying them to cell-site location information (CSLI), and acknowledging that individuals possess a legitimate expectation of privacy concerning their physical movements as captured by their cell phones. The Court determined that accessing CSLI records without a warrant amounts to a search under the Fourth Amendment, necessitating a warrant. This ruling highlights the significant privacy implications of permitting government access to detailed records of an individual's movements, challenging the traditional Third-Party Doctrine in the context of digital data, and underscores the need for comprehensive Fourth Amendment protections in the digital era.

Applying Carpenter to ICE's Surveillance Dragnet

Does this practice fall within the Fourth Amendment's safeguard against unreasonable searches? While Carpenter specifically addressed the government's collection of CSLI data and established that obtaining such data for seven or more days without a warrant constitutes a search, the ruling did not directly extend to other types of location data or collection methods, leaving a legal gray area regarding the government's procurement of location data from open markets. However, the rationale behind Carpenter logically extends to ICE's practices for several reasons. Courts in cases such as Demo v. Kirksey and United States v. Diggs have broadened Carpenter's applicability beyond CSLI to encompass other forms of geolocation data. This judicial trend acknowledges the overarching privacy concerns tied to continuous location tracking, regardless of the specific technology employed to gather the data.

ICE's method of compiling surveillance databases from diverse sources underscores the agency's capacity for extensive monitoring of individuals, often without their consent or awareness. This level of surveillance capability echoes the privacy concerns addressed in Carpenter. The utilization of technology like cell-site simulators, which capture communications to track people's locations, starkly contradicts the privacy protections envisioned by Carpenter. Furthermore, the digital age challenges the traditional Third-Party Doctrine, as the nature of digital data and the ease with which it can be amassed and analyzed call for a reevaluation of what constitutes voluntary sharing. Essential services such as utilities, indispensable to modern life, complicate the concept of voluntary sharing, as opting out of such services is impractical for most individuals.

CONCLUSION

The advent of technology that enables pervasive government surveillance could scarcely have been envisioned by the Founding Fathers. In light of these developments, it is imperative to expand the protections established in the Carpenter decision, including reexamining the applicability of the Third-Party Doctrine in scenarios where avoiding the sharing of location data is virtually impossible. The central issue remains whether the Fourth Amendment's privacy safeguards can be effectively maintained in an era where government agencies can bypass traditional legal mechanisms to surveil individuals through the acquisition of commercially available location data.

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, BrayanArreola
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.