This article examines the decision in United States v. Maynard as well as the simultaneous emergence of a vocal set of magistrate judges advocating for Fourth Amendment protection for cell phone location information. It argues that, even if the Maynard rationale is widely adopted and the use of tracking devices is found to be a search, the Fourth Amendment principles of specificity and limited discretion on the part of government officers mean that the warrant frameworks currently in use will not provide adequate protection from the threat of government officers obtaining information for which they have not demonstrated a need. Finally, it suggests several concepts to be adopted into a new electronic tracking warrant in order to encourage the government to use electronic tracking in a sufficiently focused manner.

First Page