New Jersey Supreme Court rules warrants needed for phone tracking

Cellphone users have a reasonable expectation of privacy of their cellphone location information, and police must obtain a search warrant before accessing that information, the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled Thursday.

"When people make disclosures to phone companies and other providers to use their services, they are not promoting the release of personal information to others," wrote Chief Justice Stuart Rabner in an unanimous ruling on an appeal. "Instead, they can reasonably expect that their personal information will remain private."
The issue of boundaries in the use of cellphone data by law enforcement agencies has figured in other courts and state legislatures. The Montana legislature passed a law recently requiring police and other agencies to obtain a search warrant from a court before tracking a person using location information from an electronic device.

Federal courts have been divided on the issue of cellphone tracking by law enforcement. But historically the New Jersey Constitution has offered greater protection to New Jersey residents than the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Rabner observed. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
"Under settled New Jersey law, individuals do not lose their right to privacy simply because they have to give information to a third-party provider, like a phone company or bank, to get service," the judge wrote. Evaluating the legal implications of cellphone technology, the judge wrote that "as a general rule, the more sophisticated and precise the tracking, the greater the privacy concern."
Police tracked the defendant Thomas Earls, wanted for burglary and receiving stolen property, to a motel using location information provided by T-Mobile without warrant, three times in one evening, on a cellphone the police believed the defendant had been using.
The trial court found that Earls had a reasonable expectation of privacy under state law and the police should have obtained a warrant to track him through cell-tower information. The court, however, admitted the evidence under an emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement.

The New Jersey decision is the first to establish a constitutional right in location data since the U.S. Supreme Court decided in United States v. Jones, a GPS tracking case in which several Justices expressed concern about the collection of location data, Electronic Privacy Information Center said in a statement.
EPIC, American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers were allowed as amici curiae to advise the court in the case.

Anticipating "extensive disruption in the administration of justice," the court decided that its ruling will apply only to the Earls case and to future cases. The warrant requirement is to take effect in thirty days from Thursday's ruling to provide adequate time to the attorney general of the state to circulate guidance to state and local law enforcement officials, the court ruled.

During a six-month period last year, in 85 percent of 600 cases for which cellphone information was sought, warrants were obtained, according to information provided by the state to the court. Local or municipal police departments are said to have handled about sixty cases in which no warrants were sought. The court, however, raised the possibility that the data may have overstated the number of cases the state specifically sought warrants.

The Earls case has been referred to the appellate court to  determine whether the emergency aid doctrine applies. The court observed that the emergency aid doctrine allows police to enter a dwelling without a warrant "for the purpose of protecting or preserving life, or preventing serious injury."

New Jersey Supreme Court rules warrants needed for phone tracking

Cellphone users have a reasonable expectation of privacy of their cellphone location information, and police must obtain a search warrant before accessing that information, the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled Thursday.

"When people make disclosures to phone companies and other providers to use their services, they are not promoting the release of personal information to others," wrote Chief Justice Stuart Rabner in an unanimous ruling on an appeal. "Instead, they can reasonably expect that their personal information will remain private."
The issue of boundaries in the use of cellphone data by law enforcement agencies has figured in other courts and state legislatures. The Montana legislature passed a law recently requiring police and other agencies to obtain a search warrant from a court before tracking a person using location information from an electronic device.

Federal courts have been divided on the issue of cellphone tracking by law enforcement. But historically the New Jersey Constitution has offered greater protection to New Jersey residents than the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Rabner observed. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

"Under settled New Jersey law, individuals do not lose their right to privacy simply because they have to give information to a third-party provider, like a phone company or bank, to get service," the judge wrote. Evaluating the legal implications of cellphone technology, the judge wrote that "as a general rule, the more sophisticated and precise the tracking, the greater the privacy concern."

Police tracked the defendant Thomas Earls, wanted for burglary and receiving stolen property, to a motel using location information provided by T-Mobile without warrant, three times in one evening, on a cellphone the police believed the defendant had been using.

The trial court found that Earls had a reasonable expectation of privacy under state law and the police should have obtained a warrant to track him through cell-tower information. The court, however, admitted the evidence under an emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement.

The New Jersey decision is the first to establish a constitutional right in location data since the U.S. Supreme Court decided in United States v. Jones, a GPS tracking case in which several Justices expressed concern about the collection of location data, Electronic Privacy Information Center said in a statement.
EPIC, American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers were allowed as amici curiae to advise the court in the case.

Anticipating "extensive disruption in the administration of justice," the court decided that its ruling will apply only to the Earls case and to future cases. The warrant requirement is to take effect in thirty days from Thursday's ruling to provide adequate time to the attorney general of the state to circulate guidance to state and local law enforcement officials, the court ruled.

During a six-month period last year, in 85 percent of 600 cases for which cellphone information was sought, warrants were obtained, according to information provided by the state to the court. Local or municipal police departments are said to have handled about sixty cases in which no warrants were sought. The court, however, raised the possibility that the data may have overstated the number of cases the state specifically sought warrants.

The Earls case has been referred to the appellate court to  determine whether the emergency aid doctrine applies. The court observed that the emergency aid doctrine allows police to enter a dwelling without a warrant "for the purpose of protecting or preserving life, or preventing serious injury."

'Jersey Shore' Star Loses 'Fitchuation' Lawsuit to Abercrombie & Fitch

Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino
Here's "The Situation," or Jersey Shore's Mike Sorrentino, who sued Abercrombie & Fitch when the clothing retailer came out with a T-shirt bearing the phrase "The Fitchuation" and also offered in a press release to pay $10,000 if Sorrentino would not wear A&F clothing on the show.

Here's the outcome, as Sorrentino has now lost his lawsuit that alleged that A&F had committed trademark infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, injury to business reputation and misappropriation of likeness.

A Florida federal judge just granted A&F summary judgment, while shooting down each of Sorrentino's claims.

PHOTOS: The Quotable Situation

Sorrentino might have given himself the the nickname "The Situation" because his abs were rock-hard, but U.S. District Judge John O'Sullivan finds his trademark claim over T-shirts to be soft and flabby. Here's the full ruling.

The judge writes, "Although the word 'situation' is not a word that was coined or made up by the plaintiffs, or a word that is obsolete, totally unknown in the language or out of common usage, the Court can discern no relationship between the word 'situation' and the apparel or entertainment services that the plaintiffs provide."

Analyzing other factors including the similarity of "The Situation" to "Fitchuation," Sorrentino fares no better.

"The T-shirt expresses 'The Fitchuation' visually and phonetically different than 'The Situation,'" writes Judge O'Sullivan. "There is no evidence of A&F 'palming off' its T-shirt as that of the plaintiffs where, as here, the T-shirt has the A&F inside label and prominently uses A&F's own famous trademark 'Fitch' as part of the parody."

STORY: Mike 'The Situation' Sorrentino's Settlement With Ex-Management Firm Hits Bump

The judge also notes that Sorrentino didn't offer "Situation" apparel until A&F did so, that Sorrentino doesn't sell his products in retail stores and that the plaintiff hasn't produced any evidence of actual confusion among consumers. As for what A&F had in mind, it's noted that an intent to parody doesn't equal an intent to confuse the public.

The Florida court also determines that A&F had a fair use right to make fun of Sorrentino in a press release. In fact, this press release is determined not to be an advertisement.

"A&F used only so much of the plaintiff's name as was reasonably necessary to respond to his wearing A&F's brand on The Jersey Shore, and did not do anything that would suggest Sorrentino's sponsorship or endorsement" writes Judge O'Sullivan. "A&F's press release expressly disassociated Sorrentino from A&F, and the plaintiffs have conceded that no third party has expressed any confusion that the press release rejecting Sorrentino's image somehow suggested sponsorship or endorsement by Sorrentino."

So much for reverse psychology in marketing. In analyzing Sorrentino's publicity rights claim, the judge won't even entertain the "hearsay" of news articles and Facebook comments that speculated the press release was a publicity stunt. And in looking at Sorrentino's false advertising claim, the judge says there isn't anything false about it.

Yes, Sorrentino could have accepted $10,000. As the judge notes, "A&F's offer of money for Sorrentino not to wear its brand is a statement of fact, but is undisputedly true."

 

'Jersey Shore' Star Loses 'Fitchuation' Lawsuit to Abercrombie & Fitch

Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino

Here's "The Situation," or Jersey Shore's Mike Sorrentino, who sued Abercrombie & Fitch when the clothing retailer came out with a T-shirt bearing the phrase "The Fitchuation" and also offered in a press release to pay $10,000 if Sorrentino would not wear A&F clothing on the show.

Here's the outcome, as Sorrentino has now lost his lawsuit that alleged that A&F had committed trademark infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, injury to business reputation and misappropriation of likeness.

A Florida federal judge just granted A&F summary judgment, while shooting down each of Sorrentino's claims.

PHOTOS: The Quotable Situation

Sorrentino might have given himself the the nickname "The Situation" because his abs were rock-hard, but U.S. District Judge John O'Sullivan finds his trademark claim over T-shirts to be soft and flabby. Here's the full ruling.

The judge writes, "Although the word 'situation' is not a word that was coined or made up by the plaintiffs, or a word that is obsolete, totally unknown in the language or out of common usage, the Court can discern no relationship between the word 'situation' and the apparel or entertainment services that the plaintiffs provide."

Analyzing other factors including the similarity of "The Situation" to "Fitchuation," Sorrentino fares no better.

"The T-shirt expresses 'The Fitchuation' visually and phonetically different than 'The Situation,'" writes Judge O'Sullivan. "There is no evidence of A&F 'palming off' its T-shirt as that of the plaintiffs where, as here, the T-shirt has the A&F inside label and prominently uses A&F's own famous trademark 'Fitch' as part of the parody."

STORY: Mike 'The Situation' Sorrentino's Settlement With Ex-Management Firm Hits Bump

The judge also notes that Sorrentino didn't offer "Situation" apparel until A&F did so, that Sorrentino doesn't sell his products in retail stores and that the plaintiff hasn't produced any evidence of actual confusion among consumers. As for what A&F had in mind, it's noted that an intent to parody doesn't equal an intent to confuse the public.

The Florida court also determines that A&F had a fair use right to make fun of Sorrentino in a press release. In fact, this press release is determined not to be an advertisement.

"A&F used only so much of the plaintiff's name as was reasonably necessary to respond to his wearing A&F's brand on The Jersey Shore, and did not do anything that would suggest Sorrentino's sponsorship or endorsement" writes Judge O'Sullivan. "A&F's press release expressly disassociated Sorrentino from A&F, and the plaintiffs have conceded that no third party has expressed any confusion that the press release rejecting Sorrentino's image somehow suggested sponsorship or endorsement by Sorrentino."

So much for reverse psychology in marketing. In analyzing Sorrentino's publicity rights claim, the judge won't even entertain the "hearsay" of news articles and Facebook comments that speculated the press release was a publicity stunt. And in looking at Sorrentino's false advertising claim, the judge says there isn't anything false about it.

Yes, Sorrentino could have accepted $10,000. As the judge notes, "A&F's offer of money for Sorrentino not to wear its brand is a statement of fact, but is undisputedly true."

Miley Cyrus Steps Out in Chicago Bulls Jersey and Short Shorts

Miley Cyrus wore a Chicago Bulls jersey in Los Angeles, California on June 23, 2013.

She can't stop. Miley Cyrus is known for her provocative, carefree looks, but this risque daytime ensemble is a real head-scratcher. The leggy stunner stepped out on Sunday, June 23, in L.A. wearing a backwards baseball hat, a Chicago Bulls basketball jersey, white shorts so teeny-tiny they were barely visible, and Saint Laurent striped ankle-strap high-heel sandals.

PHOTOS: Miley Cyrus' very short shorts

The singer accessorized with several strands of gold necklaces, stacked rings and bracelets, and a chunky, blinged-out watch. Red lipstick and matching long red nails completed the bold look.

PHOTOS: Miley's raciest outfits

Short shorts have become a wardrobe staple for the uninhibited singer, who's been frequently spotted rocking tight daisy dukes, but her hemlines seem to be creeping up even higher lately. In her video for her new single "We Can't Stop," she dances and writhes in various revealing ensembles, including a white leotard onesie.

PHOTOS: Miley Cyrus and Liam Hemsworth's love story

This isn't the first time Cyrus has shown some love for a Chicago sports team. The songstress tweeted a shot of herself last week wearing a Chicago White Sox jersey, high heels, and — naturally — no pants.

Tell Us: Do you like her outfit?