Key facts
- The Supreme Court ruled that cell phone location data is protected by the Constitution.
- Police demands for cell phone location data from tech companies are considered an intrusion on privacy.
- The ruling stems from a 2019 bank robbery case where a geofence warrant was used.
- Google's updated data storage policy means it can no longer comply with such location history requests.
- The case will be reconsidered by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the warrant's validity.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution protects individuals' cell phone location history, deeming police demands for such data an intrusion on a constitutionally protected privacy interest. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the majority, stated that police intrude on this interest when they demand location information, even if it's for a limited time and from a third-party tech company.
The case originated from a 2019 bank robbery in Virginia, where police used a geofence warrant to identify devices near the crime scene, leading to the arrest of Okello Chatrie. This type of warrant allows police to request data on all devices within a specific geographic area and time frame.
Privacy advocates argue that such broad warrants violate the Fourth Amendment because they are not narrowly tailored and can ensnare innocent individuals. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, represented by Andrew Crocker, stated they would continue to push for the elimination of these warrants.
Google altered its data collection practices in 2023, storing location history directly on users' devices rather than on its servers. This change means Google can no longer comply with requests for historical location data as it no longer possesses it.
Justice Alito, in a dissenting opinion, criticized the majority for not addressing the legality of the warrant in Chatrie's specific case, calling the decision an "irresponsible escapade" that falsely positions the Court as a privacy champion.
The case will now return to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether the geofence warrant used in Chatrie's arrest was properly filed.