The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hello, everyone, it's Anthony Bandiero Here, attorney, Senior Legal instructor for Blue to gold law enforcement training, bringing in a roadside chat. Alright, this question comes from an officer in Utah love teaching in Utah. So the officer is basically saying, what are the requirements to ping a cell phone for a suicidal suspect? Right, or I should say subject. So, here are some of the contexts. Can officers request a cell phone ping based off of a third party's suicidal report? Right, that's something suicidal. Sometimes these reports are hours, if not days old. Is there a reasonable timeframe to get the pain? Does the urgency fade as time passes? I'm seeing this use more and more. And basically, our law enforcement officers overstepping and or infringing on an individual's rights of privacy? So excellent question. And we don't have a lot of clear answers. So number one, I do not give any answer or any my opinion that's based off a state law. The reason why is that I'm a constitutionally, I'm a constitutional expert, not a statutory expert. So my viewers out there that are in Illinois, New York, you know, and so forth. You're going to have statutes on this issue, that you have to research everybody that the research, but I bring up those states because those states are notoriously a little bit more restrictive. Okay. So back to the question, constitutionally, well, the most appropriate case that we have on this issue is Carpenter, right from the US Supreme Court, I think 2018 Don't quote me on that part. But it's a it's a recent case. And carfinder involved getting cell site location information on a suspect, believed to be involved in cell phone robbery stories, actually. So they had about 127 days of data that they got. And based off of that data, they put carpenter at all the right places at the right time for these cell phone robberies. And the Supreme Court found that that was a search under the Fourth Amendment, and therefore required some exception to the Fourth Amendment or a warrant exigency may get you there, but not 427 days, right? exigency for like here, and now type pinging but usually a search warrant. Now one thing that they did say, in the case in a footnote, I think footnote two or three in the carpenter case, was that they gave a bright line rule that certainly seven days or more of location history requires a search warrant. But carpenter didn't really address the here and now, agency arguments for suicidal people, armed and dangerous people, kidnapping suspects and so forth. That's not what carpenter is all about carpenter really focused on historical data. Still, though, it did involve location information. So I'm just saying, you know, as far as the Supreme Court goes, that's our most relevant case where we kind of look for guidance. Now, going back to the question, so constitutionally, if somebody is about to commit suicide or hurt somebody else, but commit suicide, there is there is exigency there to try to save the person's life. So constitutionally, it's permissible to get a ping of where the person is.
The cop does bring up though, you know, at what point does this exigency become stale? I don't know. It's gonna be a fact, it's gonna be a case by case determination. But I'm glad you're bringing it up. Because this is going to be an issue, potentially, for the courts, right? And you're gonna have to make that decision. Some, in some cases, the fact that it's a few days old, may still be agency. In fact, maybe the court would be like, hey, the guy or girl has been missing for three days. Nobody knows where they're, they're at. They talked to the contemplated suicide, they got the ping. And, you know, we go from there, and the courts may say, the person could still be alive, maybe they shot themselves, maybe they try to injure themselves, and they're, you know, they're there. They're slowly dying in some ditch somewhere. The cops would like to need to know where that person is. Right, especially before the cell phone dies, or maybe that's the last location and so forth. But it is an issue. And it's an issue for you to decide. I can't decide that for you because I need more facts. But yes, it is an issue. So at the end of the day are Leo's overstep infringing on a person's rights? I believe the answer is no, constitutionally, if the cops can articulate that there's some form of exigency here and now to go track that person down and try to get them medical assistance, mental assistance and so forth. If there is no exigency, then totally different question. And we don't have a clear answer, at least from the US Supreme Court. I hope it helps. That's my two cents on it. And that's what it's worth. It's worth two cents. So, if you want to keep these going, hit like or comment, subscribe. Tell your friends about me. Let's get 10s of 1000s of cops watching these. And until next time, my friends, keep doing the great job you do out there.
When it comes to law enforcement training, we are the gold standard visit blue to gold.com or call 888-579-7796 to learn more about our training books and free webinars. Also, don't forget to like, subscribe and share this channel.