Key facts
- The Supreme Court ruled that geofence warrants require Fourth Amendment privacy protections.
- Cellphone location data is protected by the Fourth Amendment.
- Law enforcement must obtain a warrant and show reasonable cause to access cellphone location data.
- The ruling applies to location history collected by third parties like Google.
- The decision came in a case where law enforcement used a geofence warrant to identify a bank robber.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that geofence warrants, a tool used by law enforcement to track down suspects by collecting location data from cellphones in a specific area, require Fourth Amendment privacy protections. In a 6-3 decision, the majority stated that cellphone location history, even when shared with third-party companies like Google, is protected by the Constitution.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the majority, emphasized that the government must now obtain a warrant and demonstrate reasonable cause to access this data. The ruling stemmed from a case where police used a geofence warrant to identify Okello Chatrie, who was later sentenced to 12 years in prison for bank robbery. Chatrie had challenged the warrant, arguing it was an unconstitutional search.
The government had argued that no search occurred because the data was voluntarily shared with Google and represented only a small portion of location data, or that movements in public spaces do not warrant privacy protections. However, the Court found that the frequency, precision, and potential government access to location data, often shared for app functionality, are not disclosed to users and thus do not diminish a person's expectation of privacy.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor highlighted that even short-term location monitoring can reveal intimate details about an individual's associations. Privacy advocates, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, praised the decision for reaffirming privacy rights in location data, though they noted the warrants were not deemed inherently unconstitutional. Tech industry groups also supported the ruling, emphasizing the need for judicial authorization for accessing geolocation information.
In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito argued that the majority's decision destabilized Fourth Amendment law and warned against applying broad rules to new technologies. He suggested an app-by-app approach might have been more appropriate and that the ruling could create significant upheaval. However, the majority countered that using smartphones is integral to modern life and does not equate to freely sharing private information with the government.