Michael V. Cibella, LLC - Litigation Attorney
Criminal Defense Attorney | Civil Litigation
Free Initial Consultation 212-818-1880 Available 24/7


  • Michael saved my life. There is no other way to put it . . . Thank you, Michael, for giving me a new day! Assault in the First Degree in Manhattan, August 2016
  • I have a clean record and I will always have Michael to thank for that. Aggravated DWI with an accident in Brooklyn, February 2016
  • Michael was invaluable in helping me through a difficult time. After being arrested with a DWI and losing my job shortly after, I was at my wit's end. DWI with an Accident and Leaving the Scene, January 2016
  • Because of you, I'm driving my kids to school! Thank you!! DWI & DMV Refusal Hearing, August 2015
  • Mike Cibella did an excellent job! . . . When something wasn’t right the day the charge was to be dismissed, Mike hunted down the DA to make it right and end the case with a dismissal. We are grateful to have engaged him. Criminal Mischief, July 2015
  • Michael, I am grateful for your help with the DA and can't thank you enough for what you did for our son. You gave him a second chance . . . Grand Larceny, May 2015
  • Michael could not have done more for me in immediately being available and putting me at ease . . . had a bull-dog-like tenacity that never stopped fighting for my case and had a great court presentation. DWI, March 2015
  • I know a dodged a bullet and it's all thanks to Michael's judgment, experience and hard work! Insurance Fraud, September 2014
  • ... Again, I'm forever grateful. I wish there were better words. THANK YOU! Fraud Investigation, July 2014
  • Thank you for all your hard work and for making this crazy process a little easier to handle. I'm very fortunate to have had you on my side. DWI, February 2014
  • Thank you very much for all that you've done. You made this difficult process very easy for me and I'm doing much better thanks to your help. DWI, December 2013
  • Thank you for saving my career! Investment Bank Trader, Larceny case, July 2011.
Michael V. Cibella Michael V. Cibella
Practice Areas

SCOTUS to decide another Fourth Amendment cell phone case

SCOTUS to decide another Fourth Amendment cell phone case

As it turns out, the Fourth Amendment has recently been front and center in two high-profile cases before the Supreme Court of the United States concerning newly developed technology: one holding that a warrant is required when placing a GPS tracking device on a suspect’s vehicle and the other holding that a warrant is required before searching cell phones seized during arrests.

Interestingly enough, the nation’s high court will once again be revisiting this still-developing area of the law in Carpenter v. U.S., a case asking whether law enforcement officials need a warrant to secure cell site location information outlining the previous paths taken by criminal suspects.

For those unfamiliar with cell site location information — or CSLI — it is retained by service providers and essentially reveals the cellphone towers to which individuals connect at the time of calls or other phone usage. This information, in turn, can be used in criminal investigations to link suspects to particular sites.

In Carpenter, law enforcement officials used CSLI to place the defendant at the scene of multiple armed robberies in Ohio and Michigan, and proved vital in securing a conviction.

Here, efforts to suppress the CSLI on the grounds it was secured in violation of the Fourth Amendment were defeated, while an appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit met a similar fate.

On Monday, SCOTUS agreed to hear the case during its next term, which commences in October.

Attorneys representing Carpenter have argued that law enforcement must have probable cause and, by extension, a warrant to secure CSLI given that it reveals sensitive and otherwise private information.

“The time has come for the Supreme Court to make clear that the longstanding protections of the Fourth Amendment apply with undiminished force to these kinds of sensitive digital records,” said one of the ACLU attorneys handling the case.

For its part, the government has advanced two arguments.

First, the establishment of the “third-party doctrine” in Smith v. Maryland, a 1979 case in which SCOTUS held that the right to privacy (i.e., the need to secure a warrant) did not extend to numbers dialed from a phone given that this information was voluntarily turned over to the phone company, a third party.

Second, a provision of the Stored Communications Act, a federal law passed back in 1986, which provides that while prosecutors do indeed have to go court to secure phone tracking data, they need only show “reasonable grounds” for seeking the information, and that it is both “relevant and material” to the investigation.

Stay tuned for updates …

If you are under investigation or have been charged with a serious felony — state or federal — consider speaking with a skilled legal professional as soon as possible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Criminal Defense Attorney