According to the court documents that you will see below, if you have your smartphone turned on, you have automatically given your consent to keep track of it.
2014, the Baltimore Police received a warrant for the arrest of Kerron Andrews for attempted murder.
To find it by the authorities, they asked permission (PDF) to use their location data and all outgoing calls.
The request, however, did not mention Hailstorm use anywhere Stingray – a mobile data collection device, also known as a “bag”) to collect this data from the suspect's smartphone.
The police used it anyway.
The authorities' use of the Stingray is nothing new. But when a judge learned how the data was collected, he concluded the police had violated the "Fourth Amendment" in arresting Andrews and granted the defense's request to throw out the evidence. data collected by Stingray.
Here, however, the interest of the case begins. The state appealed against the decision.
He argued that the court erred in its original ruling that Andrews voluntarily gave them up information from his mobile to the Authorities (and other third parties), when he opened his phone.
We do not know what will happen. If the Maryland Court of Appeal succeeds in overturning the court's original decision and stating that the evidence gathered with the use of Stingray is lawful, all state courts may rely on that decision to justify the use of mass data collection without warrant.
