Case5:15-xr-90304-HRL Document30 Filed07/29/15 Page16 of 46 1 that “[d]ata on a cell phone can also reveal where a person has been.” Id. at 2489-90. Relying on 2 Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence in Jones, the Riley Court explained its concern: “Historic 3 location information is a standard feature on many smart phones and can reconstruct someone’s 4 specific movements down to the minute, not only around town but also within a particular 5 building.” Id. at 2490. United States District Court Northern District of California 6 Based on the preceding U.S. Supreme Court cases, the following principles are manifest: 7 (1) an individual’s expectation of privacy is at its pinnacle when government surveillance intrudes 8 on the home; (2) long-term electronic surveillance by the government implicates an individual’s 9 expectation of privacy; and (3) location data generated by cell phones, which are ubiquitous in this 10 day and age, can reveal a wealth of private information about an individual. Applying those 11 principles to the information sought here by the government, the Court finds that individuals have 12 an expectation of privacy in the historical CSLI associated with their cell phones, and that such an 13 expectation is one that society is willing to recognize as reasonable. See Katz, 389 U.S. at 360-61 14 (Harlan, J., concurring). 15 Here, as in Jones, the government seeks permission to track the movement of 16 individuals—without a warrant—over an extended period of time and by electronic means. CSLI, 17 like GPS, can provide the government with a “comprehensive record of a person’s public 18 movements that reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, professional, religious, and 19 sexual associations.” Riley, 134 S. Ct. at 2490 (quoting Jones, 132 S. Ct. at 955 (Sotomayor, J., 20 concurring)). With the proliferation of smaller and smaller base stations such as microcells, 21 picocells, and femtocells—which cover a very specific area, such as one floor of a building, the 22 waiting room of an office, or a single home, see Blaze Testimony at 43-44—the government is 23 able to use historical CSLI to track an individual’s past whereabouts with ever increasing 24 precision. See Riley, 134 S. Ct. at 2490 (explaining that a cell phone’s “[h]istoric location 25 information . . . can reconstruct someone’s specific movements down to the minute, not only 26 around town but also within a particular building”). At oral argument, the government agreed that 27 28 16 Case No. 15-XR-90304-HRL-1(LHK) ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR HISTORICAL CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION