A federal judge in Nevada has taken a firm stand on digital privacy, ruling that a law enforcement tactic known as a “tower dump” violates the U.S. Constitution. The move marks a critical moment in the ongoing battle over how far police can go when tapping into cell phone data. But despite calling the practice unconstitutional, the judge will still allow evidence obtained this way to be used in an ongoing criminal case—at least this time.
In similar complex legal scenarios, particularly those involving international financial crimes or illicitly acquired assets, the role of specialized asset recovery lawyers becomes crucial. These professionals assist in tracing and reclaiming hidden or unlawfully transferred assets, often across multiple jurisdictions.
What’s a Tower Dump, and Why Does It Matter?
Imagine you’re walking through a neighborhood, and your phone is quietly connecting to a nearby cell tower. It does this automatically every few seconds, without you doing a thing. Now imagine police ask that tower’s operator to hand over data on every phone that connected to it during a specific window of time—names, numbers, locations, the works. That’s a tower dump.
It’s a powerful tool for law enforcement. It can help track down suspects or find witnesses. But it also collects data from thousands of people who have absolutely nothing to do with any crime. Critics say that’s the digital equivalent of letting police search every house in a neighborhood just to find one person.
The Spurlock Case: A Test of Boundaries
The ruling came during the trial of Cory Spurlock, a Nevada man facing serious charges, including marijuana distribution and a murder-for-hire scheme. Police used a tower dump to place Spurlock’s phone near the scene of some of the alleged crimes. While investigators did get a warrant to conduct the dump, they later argued that it wasn’t really a “search,” and therefore not subject to the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Spurlock’s defense team strongly disagreed, insisting that the tower dump was unconstitutional and that the data from it should be thrown out.
The Judge’s Decision: A Clear Line Drawn
U.S. District Judge Miranda M. Du didn’t buy the argument that tower dumps fall outside the realm of a “search.” In her April 11 ruling, she stated clearly that tower dumps are searches—and that the warrant police used in Spurlock’s case amounted to a “general warrant,” which the Fourth Amendment specifically prohibits.
General warrants, by design, allow authorities to search broadly, without targeting specific individuals. They’re considered dangerous because they open the door to sweeping violations of privacy. Judge Du pointed out that the warrant used here captured information on nearly 1,700 people, most of whom had no connection to the case.
Still, despite finding the search unconstitutional, Du declined to suppress the evidence in Spurlock’s case. Why? Because of the “good faith” exception in legal practice. Since officers believed they were following the law when they obtained the warrant, and because no other court in the Ninth Circuit had yet ruled on the issue, Du allowed the data to stand—for now.
The Bigger Picture: Other Courts Are Watching
This isn’t the first time tower dumps have come under legal fire. Earlier this year, a federal judge in Mississippi reached a similar conclusion, deeming the practice unconstitutional. The Justice Department has appealed that decision, suggesting this legal fight is far from over.
Experts say that with judges in different states reaching the same conclusions, it’s only a matter of time before the U.S. Supreme Court gets involved. The high court has previously ruled, in Carpenter v. United States (2018), that the government needs a warrant to collect long-term cell phone location data. But that ruling didn’t directly address tower dumps, and the justices have so far avoided tackling the issue head-on.
Caught in the Data Net
One detail from the Spurlock case underscores just how broad these searches can be: the tower dump used to track his phone also collected data on 1,686 other people. An expert testified that these individuals never consented to having their movements recorded—and that they couldn’t have opted out, even if they wanted to. Their phones simply connected to the tower automatically, and that data was swept up in the police request.
This involuntary data capture has raised alarm bells among privacy advocates, who argue that modern surveillance techniques like this trample constitutional rights. The idea that law enforcement can search through personal data from hundreds or thousands of bystanders just to find a suspect strikes many as deeply troubling.
