The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement access to a person’s Google location history qualifies as a search under the Fourth Amendment. The 6-3 decision establishes that cellphone users can retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in location data held by technology companies.
The ruling does not prohibit geofence warrants or decide whether the warrant used in the case was constitutional. Instead, the court returned the case to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether the request met requirements such as probable cause and sufficient particularity.
Location Data Is Protected From Warrantless Searches
Geofence warrants require a company to identify devices recorded within a defined location during a specified period. Investigators can draw a boundary around a crime scene and request information about users whose phones appeared inside it.
These requests are often called reverse warrants because investigators seek data linked to an area before identifying a suspect. Critics argue that the process can collect information belonging to innocent people who happened to be nearby.
In its official opinion, the court rejected the government’s argument that users automatically lose their privacy rights by allowing Google to store their location history. It found that using a service does not necessarily mean a person has voluntarily exposed the data in a way that removes Fourth Amendment protection.
The decision builds on the court’s treatment of digital location records as sensitive information. Authorities can still seek historical location data, but courts must assess whether the search satisfies constitutional safeguards.
Chatrie Case Returns to Appeals Court
The case involved Okello Chatrie, who was identified after police requested Google location records connected to a 2019 bank robbery in Virginia. The initial search identified several devices near the crime scene before investigators narrowed the information and linked one device to Chatrie.
Chatrie argued that investigators had searched a large collection of user data before establishing individualized suspicion. His lawyers described the process as allowing authorities to search first and develop suspicions afterward.
A federal district court previously found that the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment but allowed the evidence under the good-faith exception. The Fourth Circuit later ruled that Chatrie lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data, a decision the Supreme Court has now set aside.
The Supreme Court did not determine whether the evidence should be excluded or whether Chatrie’s conviction should change. The appeals court must now decide whether the warrant itself was supported by probable cause and properly limited.
Google has shifted toward storing certain location history data on users’ devices rather than its own servers, reducing its ability to respond to some geofence requests. Other companies that retain location information, including Microsoft, Uber and Yahoo, may also receive similar demands from law enforcement.
Featured image credits: Magnific.com
For more stories like it, click the +Follow button at the top of this page to follow us.