DOJ Delays Tower Dumps Appeal As Digital Privacy Battle Intensifies

The Department of Justice , or DOJ, has requested more time to decide whether to appeal a landmark federal court ruling that found “tower dumps”—a widely used law enforcement surveillance method—unconstitutional. This delay highlights the growing conflict between police surveillance tactics and the courts’ increasing scrutiny of digital privacy, as reported by Court Watch News

The Mississippi Ruling That Sparked a National Debate

In February 2025, U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew Harris of the Southern District of Mississippi became the first federal judge to declare the use of tower dumps unconstitutional. The case stemmed from an FBI investigation into a violent gang suspected of a series of shootings and car thefts. Over fourteen months, federal agents sought four sealed search warrants to collect data from cellular towers at nine locations. Judge Harris denied the FBI’s requests multiple times, even after the DOJ submitted clarifications and participated in a conference call to address his concerns. Harris wrote, “The Government is essentially asking the Court to allow it access to an entire haystack because it may contain a needle… The Fourth Amendment does not permit law enforcement to rummage through troves of data and themselves determine the existence of probable cause to support the seizure of that data.”

What Are Tower Dumps?

Tower dumps are a powerful investigative tool. When a tower dump is requested, cellular carriers provide records of every device that connected to specific cell towers during a designated period. This data includes phone numbers, unique device identifiers, connection dates and times, duration of connections and the types of communications transmitted. The scale of these data collections can be enormous. In the “High Country Bandits” case from 2010, FBI agents investigating rural bank robberies obtained over 150,000 registered cell phone numbers from just four tower dumps. Only two of those numbers belonged to the actual suspects. In a more recent Massachusetts case, law enforcement obtained tower dump data covering tens of thousands of unique phone numbers to investigate a series of armed robberies.

Legal Landscape: A Patchwork of Precedents

The Mississippi ruling followed a significant decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in August 2024, which found geofence warrants unconstitutional. Geofence warrants require companies like Google to provide location data for all devices in a specific area, casting a wide net to identify potential suspects. The Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Smith established that mass data collection techniques, which sweep up information about thousands of innocent people, are incompatible with the Fourth Amendment. Judge Harris’s ruling extended this logic to tower dumps.

Telecoms and the Scale of Surveillance

Telecommunications companies, which process these massive data requests, have largely remained silent in the public debate. Internal documents and court filings reveal that major carriers have different data retention policies. AT&T retains call records, cell site, and tower dump data for seven years, while T-Mobile keeps similar information for only two years. The FBI’s Cellular Analysis Survey Team, or CAST, supports thousands of investigations annually using tower dump analysis, with sophisticated tools for analyzing the vast datasets provided by telecoms.

Privacy Advocates Sound the Alarm

Privacy advocates argue that tower dumps represent a fundamental threat to constitutional protections. The American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation have warned that these surveillance techniques could be used to identify people at home in a neighborhood, protestors at a political rally, or congregants at a place of worship. Legal scholars emphasize that tower dumps amount to mass surveillance and allow police to obtain highly personal information about thousands of people unconnected to the offense under investigation.

The DOJ’s Legal Dilemma

The DOJ’s repeated requests for extensions highlight the stakes involved. After initially indicating in March that prosecutors would seek to “reverse or vacate” the Mississippi ruling, the DOJ’s latest motion omits such language and simply requests more time to “determine next steps”. This hesitation is notable, especially since tower dumps continue to be used by law enforcement agencies nationwide during the appeals process, including in high-profile investigations such as arson attacks against Tesla vehicles.

What Comes Next?

Legal experts predict that the conflicting circuit court decisions on digital surveillance warrants will likely force the Supreme Court to weigh in. The Court’s 2018 decision in Carpenter v. United States, which required warrants for long-term cell phone location tracking, has already begun to reshape digital privacy law. The outcome of the current legal battle will have significant implications for both law enforcement capabilities and individual privacy rights.

The Bigger Picture: Surveillance in the Digital Age

The tower dumps controversy is part of a broader reckoning with law enforcement’s digital surveillance capabilities. Beyond geofence warrants and tower dumps, agencies use other mass data collection techniques, such as reverse keyword searches and social media monitoring. These tools have become increasingly sophisticated and widespread. The FBI’s training materials show that cellular analysis now supports investigations ranging from terrorism cases to routine criminal matters. What began as an emergency measure in rare cases has become a standard investigative tool used thousands of times each year.

Internationally, other countries have taken a more restrictive approach. Canadian courts, for example, require warrants based on reasonable and probable grounds and mandate that tower dumps be conducted in ways that minimize privacy intrusions for subscribers.

As the DOJ continues to deliberate, the legal and technological landscape is still evolving. The current patchwork of conflicting decisions creates uncertainty for law enforcement agencies and privacy advocates alike. The resolution of this issue will likely require clear guidance from higher courts about the constitutional limits of mass digital surveillance. Until then, the tension between effective law enforcement and privacy protections will continue to play out in courtrooms across the country, with far-reaching implications for the future of digital privacy in America.