Getting through a day requires giving your data away maybe dozens of times.
Even if you read through all of the terms and conditions for the apps and devices that run your home and your life, you’d probably be forced to check “I agree” whether you do or not, just for everything to function.
Today marked a decisive move in ensuring that the consequences for that trade of your data for those services doesn’t also include your Fourth Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 decision that found that the government has to obtain a warrant to access your cell phone location data.
Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile were selling your location data, and they can finally be punished for it
Carriers argued they were being deprived of a jury trial
Google handed over data that led to arrest
The case at the center of the decision, Chatrie v. United States, involved Google handing over data to law enforcement officials that led to the arrest of a man who stole nearly $200,000 from a credit union in 2019.
After the robbery, law enforcement had no leads, so they used a geofence warrant, a type of reverse search warrant that allows officials to access the data of anyone within a set perimeter of the crime without their knowledge.
In this particular case, Google had to search through the data of millions of people to provide a list of 19 unnamed accounts linked to devices within 150 meters of the bank in the 30 minutes before and after the robbery. Later, they provided additional information for nine accounts that were in the area in a two-hour period. Finally, they received the names and other information for three of those accounts, one of which belonged to the perpetrator.
Ruling means judicial warrants needed for location data
Today’s decision puts that data squarely under the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. As a result, law enforcement will be required to obtain judicial warrants for an individual’s location data.
In the majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, “An individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone’s location, and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information—even though for only a limited time, and from a third-party tech company.”
The case now goes back to a lower court to determine whether the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
