You're watching...
FOX News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano on the new debate over data on your cell phone.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
Okay we've been now -- -- witness talk about this -- the data on yourself on the source of the new debate that's going before the federal appeals court.
And again -- the case -- this is in front of the US Court of Appeals in New Orleans over whether police should be allowed to track you over your phone without a warrant for that information.
But so much more is at stake and regarding your personal information.
And your phone -- -- nobody better to talk about this hot topic.
Always hot judge Andrew and -- While the topic or are -- -- -- probably a lot of -- I -- -- -- you know all the time.
-- this is my best cellphone -- -- turned off brands off.
However it can still tell the police with a warrant or if they want -- break the -- without a warrant where it is.
And it can also be used by the police with a warrant or for want to break the law without a warrant.
To listen to conversations within earshot of the cell -- the only way to disabling.
Its take the battery out.
This case involves.
Large scale acquisition of information from telecoms.
About -- -- cell phone users are at a given time.
And -- Telecom that to -- Does business in Texas but it's not named in the papers basically said the federal government no we're not gonna give this information out of search warrant for the federal government.
In its argument.
Before the courts and against this Telecom has come up with some new theory of the Fourth Amendment that no one's ever heard of in 230 years.
And that is -- some third party has your records here.
The Telecom and it has the records of where you are and to whom you're speaking.
You don't have a privacy interest in them therefore the feds can get it.
Without a search warrant and therefore about Fourth Amendment doesn't apply now we'll see what the court says this will be a why -- change in the law.
If the court adopts the government's argument far -- -- committed read between the lines but doesn't sound like you think the government as much an argument here now I'm in the Fourth Amendment was was written to protect fishing expeditions -- to protect us from fishing expeditions.
If the government believes that that the -- of -- cellphone is engaged in criminal activity it's pretty easy.
To get the the search warrant the Fed has to be that threshold -- the constitution calls it.
Probable cause enough evidence of that in neutral person looking at this would say.
Yeah this would probably lead to more evidence of criminal behavior of giving the search warrant.
But they just want your cell phones because they want them they just want to know where you are because their interest in yield without having probable cause.
The Fourth Amendment was written to protect us against you think that's the way it will go yes.
The learning trial judge in Texas -- -- told the -- -- get a search warrant by the way yeah I I won't give you wanted to -- give me any reason for one.
And the Justice Department.
Is a feeling it to the -- fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the world's -- my prediction is that the fifth circuit will affirm.
What the charges that it on the Justice Department will decide whether or not wants to take this to the US Supreme Court took I want to the court last year has just kind of -- yeah.
-- just trying to fight crime or -- -- Just don't kind of -- job is to preserve freedom young lady and you know.
If I explain why that explains a lot yardstick that Tommy young -- yes our station and it just -- a most unique characters in the -- there's always thought us politics is battery out of his -- -- he's leaving the studio every day now well now he knows that.
In the old days I think -- yeah.
Idea what's changed one the most unique characters ever I don't know I think -- -- -- --
