The appellant, Chester Comerford, was a licensed attorney and previous law professor who operated a website for a group whom he founded, called the guardians. The guardians questioned President Obama’s citizenship; in 2011 Comerford was convicted of aiding and abetting threats on the President, however the Supreme Court of the United States reversed his conviction the following year.
After his conviction was reversed, Comerford went to a local merchant to purchase a smart-phone. Knowing that a phone could be tracked through GPS technology, Comerford disabled the GPS tracking capability, with help from online instructions. Comerford was aware that every phone has an international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) that could be tracked. However, …show more content…
The source stated that “Comerford had people arriving at his home at odd hours, and he would come and go in the middle of the night.” The source provided the FBI with Comerford’s cell phone number and wireless provider. The FBI decided to corroborate the anonymous tip. The investigation made use of recently purchased surveillance technology known as “the Chum” that captures the IMSI of cellphones.
IMSI-catching technology, such as the Chum, enables its users to obtain data from cell phones that reveals a phone’s location. The Chum acts as a cell phone tower, receiving signals from cell phones and responding to them every 7-15 seconds. Chum operators are in constant contact with the cell phone they seek to track, however it cannot record or intercept the content of the devices.
In continuation, without a warrant, the FBI set up a single fake cell phone tower in an open field near Comerford’s home and monitored his location using the Chum. Since the FBI knew Comerford’s phone number, they captured his IMSI and narrowed their surveillance to only Comerford’s cell phone. The FBI captured and retained the location data emitting from Comerford’s cell phone. The range of the chum was wide enough where it allowed the FBI to monitor the appellant’s movements outside of his home. The FBI, were unable to track the appellant’s movements or location inside his
After his conviction was reversed, Comerford went to a local merchant to purchase a smart-phone. Knowing that a phone could be tracked through GPS technology, Comerford disabled the GPS tracking capability, with help from online instructions. Comerford was aware that every phone has an international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) that could be tracked. However, …show more content…
The source stated that “Comerford had people arriving at his home at odd hours, and he would come and go in the middle of the night.” The source provided the FBI with Comerford’s cell phone number and wireless provider. The FBI decided to corroborate the anonymous tip. The investigation made use of recently purchased surveillance technology known as “the Chum” that captures the IMSI of cellphones.
IMSI-catching technology, such as the Chum, enables its users to obtain data from cell phones that reveals a phone’s location. The Chum acts as a cell phone tower, receiving signals from cell phones and responding to them every 7-15 seconds. Chum operators are in constant contact with the cell phone they seek to track, however it cannot record or intercept the content of the devices.
In continuation, without a warrant, the FBI set up a single fake cell phone tower in an open field near Comerford’s home and monitored his location using the Chum. Since the FBI knew Comerford’s phone number, they captured his IMSI and narrowed their surveillance to only Comerford’s cell phone. The FBI captured and retained the location data emitting from Comerford’s cell phone. The range of the chum was wide enough where it allowed the FBI to monitor the appellant’s movements outside of his home. The FBI, were unable to track the appellant’s movements or location inside his