‘Tower dump’ warrants ruled unconstitutional

A federal judge in Mississippi ruled on Wednesday that so-called “tower dump” warrants are unconstitutional, declining to reverse a lower court decision refusing the government’s request to obtain the search warrants in a series of violent crime investigations.   

A “tower dump” involves cell phone companies providing law enforcement with access to the time and location data of all mobile devices connected to specific cell towers during a designated time window.

Law enforcement had sought approval for several of these search warrants as part of criminal investigations into gang-related activity in the Jackson, Miss., area last year, arguing the data could help identify all those potentially involved, particularly in incidents with unknown suspects.

A magistrate judge denied the applications, holding that “tower dumps” are impermissible general warrants. The district judge agreed.

“With this information, the Government asserts that it will be able to identify all potential suspects,” Judge Carlton Reeves wrote in a 30-page order. “Even so, law enforcement would also have access to the cellular records of countless individuals, the vast majority of whom were merely passing by a location at the ‘wrong’ time.”

 “That is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment,” the judge concluded.

The order repeatedly referenced the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Chatrie, in which the majority held that so-called “geofence warrants” are a “search” under the Fourth Amendment and individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cellular data.

Reeves also regularly cited the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Smith, which predated the Chatrie ruling and found that geofence warrants are categorically unconstitutional.  

“To date, neither the Supreme Court nor the Fifth Circuit has opined on the constitutionality of tower dumps,” he noted. “However, the Supreme Court in Carpenter and Chatrie, as well as the Fifth Circuit in Smith, left a trail of breadcrumbs—sprinkling hints—for how lower courts should proceed on these novel Fourth Amendment issues.”

The judge also pointed out that while digital surveillance can be an effective investigative and prosecutorial tool, it also provides the government “unfettered access” to individuals’ lives in a way the Founders could not have anticipated.   

“Therein lies the problem—the technological resources at the government’s disposal unlock efficient and effective ways to solve crime in the twenty-first century, but they also expose individuals’ whereabouts at all times, including in sensitive places,” Reeves wrote.

“As technology continues to evolve, open questions remain about what surveillance actions meet constitutional muster,” he added. “The Fourth Amendment’s protection against expansive government surveillance, nevertheless, must stay true to the Founders’ core principles.”

Reeves was nominated to the bench in the Southern District of Mississippi by former President Obama.

Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

More Court Battles News

See All