GoKawiilThe US supreme court has ruled that law enforcement’s use of sprawling warrants that sweep up smartphone location data requires privacy protections under the fourth amendment, in a boost to critics who view their use as an unconstitutional dragnet.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion, which held that the sensitive data scooped up by “geofence warrants” counts as a fourth amendment search, and offers individuals a “reasonable expectation of privacy”, even if they may be in a public area.
“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,” Kagan wrote.
The judges ruled 6-3 in Chatrie v US, against the government, in a case that has been widely viewed as a test of how privacy rights translate into a new digital era.
The use of geofence warrants is widespread, and gives law enforcement agencies the power to compel tech companies to hand over sensitive cell phone data from people at or near crime scenes. The warrants allow police and the FBI to collect this information from individuals within the radius of a virtual “fence” during a particular timeframe. But they aren’t restricted to requesting data for precise targets.
The Chatrie case focuses on local police’s pursuit of an armed bank robber in Richmond, Virginia. He fled with $195,000. Law enforcement tracked Okello Chatrie down through their use of geofence warrants. Chatrie had opted in to an optional Google “location history” feature that documented his location every few minutes. He was eventually sentenced to 12 years in prison, after pleading guilty.
Chatrie’s lawyers argued that this search was overly broad and violated his fourth amendment rights, which protects individuals from “unreasonable search and seizure”. Lawyers said that police’s use of geofence warrants amounted to an official “search” under the fourth amendment, and didn’t meet the constitution’s requirements for one.
The government had argued that accessing only a short amount of cellphone location information means this tactic does not count as a fourth amendment search and accordingly, should not be afforded the same privacy protections. But the judges in the majority disagreed.
The judges in the majority opinion also wrote that the government’s characterization of generating location history as a voluntary choice is “meritless”.
They suggested that people aren’t choosing to share private information with third parties and the government “just by doing the ordinary thing cellphone users do.” “The point of carrying smartphones is to use what is on them”, including the apps and services they provide – many of which use location data to customize a user’s experience, they said.
... continue reading