GoKawiilJoe Maring / Android Authority
TL;DR The US Supreme Court has ruled that Fourth Amendment protections extend to data, such as location history, that people hand over to companies like Google and Apple.
The result means that police need a warrant to obtain that data.
The 6-3 decision was over a case involving a 2019 bank robbery in which police used a geofence warrant to locate all devices near the crime scene.
Just because you agreed to let Google or Apple access your phone data, like location history, does that mean the government should be able to access it as well? According to a new ruling, it seems the US Supreme Court doesn’t think so. The court has found that the data your mobile devices track should remain private to you, regardless of whether you share it with tech companies.
Today, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Chatrie v. United States, holding that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy from the government. Specifically, the decision extends Fourth Amendment protections to data that people hand over to tech companies. In short, the decision means that police will need a warrant to obtain the data you share with these companies.
Chatrie v. United States involves a 2019 bank robbery in which police used a geofence warrant to locate all devices near the crime scene. It resulted in the arrest of Okello Chatrie. The issue at the heart of the case, according to privacy advocates, is that broad warrants like these violate the Fourth Amendment because they aren’t narrowly tailored and could allow officials to access and gather data from innocent people.
Writing for the majority, 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 three dissenters included Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, and Clarence Thomas. Writing for the minority, Justice Alito wrote: Indeed, by refusing to review the one question that could have at least theoretically given Chatrie some hope of relief, the Court carefully set the stage for its planned performance: striking a pose as a great champion of privacy in the digital age. I cannot support this irresponsible escapade. The case now moves down to the fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals. It will decide if the geofencing warrant in Chatrie v. United States was properly filed.
Follow