
The U.S. Supreme Court
on Monday ruled that individuals have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” for location information generated by a mobile phone, limiting law enforcement use of so-called geofence warrants.
The case in question is
Chatrie v. United States, in which police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment—that’s the “unreasonable searches and seizures” one—search when they acquired Okello Chatrie’s location data from Google.
In a 6-3 ruling, the court said that law enforcement officials must indeed obtain a search warrant when requesting location information, historical or otherwise, from tech companies like Google. And those warrants must be more narrowly applied than they previously have been.
According to the court, the user is not willingly sharing their location data to Google just by using its services, making for a similar situation as location information shared to, say, telecommunications companies.
(For the legal nerds among you: All of this centers on the so-called “third-party doctrine,” from 2018’s
Carpenter v. United States, which says there is no legitimate privacy interest in any data that is voluntarily disclosed.)
Geofence warrants are meant to force tech firms to surrender information about which of their customers were in a given area at a given time. Critics call them unconstitutional “
reverse search warrants” because they include information about customers uninvolved in the inquiry.
The Supreme Court did not ban geofence warrants altogether—so expect law enforcement to continue to draw circles on a map and demand data from tech companies. But the circles must be smaller, pushing back on criticism that geofence warrants are too often made in bad faith and in search of probable cause.
—AN