Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Davis (2015): No warrant required for historical CSLI.
Cell Phone Location Tracking Laws By State
Location records can reveal an enormous amount of information about a person, especially with the proliferation of smartphones that constantly track our whereabouts. Because privacy laws haven’t kept up with advances in technology, police have long claimed the authority to access this information from cell phone companies without warrants.
That’s changing. While Congress and the Supreme Court haven’t yet weighed in on whether a warrant should be required for location information, little by little, state legislatures and lower courts are expanding privacy protections for more and more Americans.
That does mean, however, that the status of your privacy protections depends on where you are. For example, your location information is protected in Montana, but not in Georgia. In Illinois, police need a warrant to know where you are right now, but not where you were last week. In California, your location information is protected against warrantless search by state and local police, but not by federal authorities. In other states, we’re still waiting for rulings, and in Florida, state and federal courts are at odds on the matter.
The map below details the status of cell phone location tracking laws by state. Click on any highlighted state for more information.
Click any highlighted state to learn more
ACLUX
Map Data:
Show map dataScroll for details on each state
Alabama
No warrant required
Alaska
No binding authority; location information unprotected
Arizona
No binding authority; location information unprotected
Arkansas
No binding authority; location information unprotected
California
Warrant required for all cell phone location information
State law (2015) requires warrant for all cell phone location information. Does not constrain federal law enforcement.
Colorado
Some protections
State law (2014) requires warrant for location information from devices but not from service providers. Does not constrain federal law enforcement.
Connecticut
Some protections
State law (2016) requires court order for all cell phone location information. Does not constrain federal law enforcement.
Delaware
Some protections
Third Circuit Court of Appeals, In re Application (2010): Magistrate judges have discretion to require warrant for historical CSLI, and third-party doctrine does not apply.
Florida
Conflicting authorities
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Davis (2015): No warrant required for historical CSLI.
Florida Supreme Court, Tracey v. State (2014): Warrant required for real-time cell phone location tracking. May not constrain federal law enforcement.
Georgia
No warrant required
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Davis (2015): No warrant required for historical CSLI.
Hawaii
No binding authority; location information unprotected
Idaho
No binding authority; location information unprotected
Illinois
Warrant required for real-time location tracking
State law (2014) requires warrant for real-time cell phone location information. Does not constrain federal law enforcement.
Indiana
Warrant required for real-time location tracking
State law (2014) requires warrant for real-time cell phone location information. Does not constrain federal law enforcement.
Iowa
No binding authority; location information unprotected
Kansas
No binding authority; location information unprotected
Kentucky
No warrant required
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Carpenter: No warrant required for historical cell site location information.
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Skinner (2012): No warrant required for short-term real-time cell phone location tracking.
Louisiana
No warrant required
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, In re Application (2013): No warrant required for historical CSLI.
Maine
Warrant required for all cell phone location information
State law (2013) requires warrant for all cell phone location information. Does not constrain federal law enforcement.
Maryland
Conflicting authorities
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Graham (2016): No warrant required for historical CSLI.
State law (2014) requires warrant for real-time cell phone location information. Does not constrain federal law enforcement.
Massachusetts
Warrant required for historical cell site location information
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Commonwealth v. Augustine (2014): Warrant required for historical CSLI under state constitution. Does not constrain federal law enforcement.
Michigan
No warrant required
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Carpenter: No warrant required for historical cell site location information.
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Skinner (2012): No warrant required for short-term real-time cell phone location tracking.
Minnesota
Warrant required for all cell phone location information
State law (2014) requires warrant for all cell phone location information. Does not constrain federal law enforcement.
Mississippi
No warrant required
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, In re Application (2013): No warrant required for historical CSLI.
Missouri
No binding authority; location information unprotected
Montana
Warrant required for all cell phone location information
State law (2013) requires warrant for all cell phone location information. Does not constrain federal law enforcement.
Nebraska
No binding authority; location information unprotected
Nevada
No warrant required
Nevada Supreme Court, Taylor v. State (2016): No warrant required for historical CSLI.
New Hampshire
Warrant required for all cell phone location information
State law (2015) requires warrant for all cell phone location information. Does not constrain federal law enforcement.
New Jersey
Warrant required for real-time location tracking
New Jersey Supreme Court, State v. Earls (2013): Warrant required for real-time cell phone location tracking under state constitution. Does not constrain federal law enforcement.
Third Circuit Court of Appeals, In re Application (2010): Magistrate judges have discretion to require warrant for historical CSLI, and third-party doctrine does not apply.
New Mexico
No binding authority; location information unprotected
New York
No binding authority; location information unprotected
North Carolina
No warrant required
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Graham (2016): No warrant required for historical CSLI.
North Dakota
No binding authority; location information unprotected
Ohio
No warrant required
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Carpenter: No warrant required for historical cell site location information.
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Skinner (2012): No warrant required for short-term real-time cell phone location tracking.
Oklahoma
No binding authority; location information unprotected
Oregon
No binding authority; location information unprotected
Pennsylvania
Some protections
Third Circuit Court of Appeals, In re Application (2010): Magistrate judges have discretion to require warrant for historical CSLI, and third-party doctrine does not apply.
Rhode Island
Warrant required for all cell phone location information
State law (2016) requires warrant for all cell phone location information. Does not constrain federal law enforcement.
South Carolina
No warrant required
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Graham (2016): No warrant required for historical CSLI.
South Dakota
No binding authority; location information unprotected
Tennessee
No warrant required
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Carpenter: No warrant required for historical cell site location information.
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Skinner (2012): No warrant required for short-term real-time cell phone location tracking.
Texas
No warrant required
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, In re Application (2013): No warrant required for historical CSLI.
Utah
Warrant required for all cell phone location information
State law (2014) requires warrant for all cell phone location information. Does not constrain federal law enforcement.
Vermont
Warrant required for all cell phone location information
State law (2016) requires warrant for all cell phone location information. Does not constrain federal law enforcement.
Virginia
Conflicting authorities
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Graham (2016): No warrant required for historical CSLI.
State law (2014) requires warrant for real-time cell phone location information, but amended in 2015 to weaken protections. Does not constrain federal law enforcement.
Washington
No binding authority; location information unprotected
West Virginia
No warrant required
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Graham (2016): No warrant required for historical CSLI.
Wisconsin
No binding authority; location information unprotected
Wyoming
No binding authority; location information unprotected