US supreme court rules geofence warrants require constitutional privacy protections
The ruling establishes critical privacy protections for digital data under the Fourth Amendment, setting a precedent for how constitutional rights apply in the digital age.
- Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion in Chatrie v US with a 6-3 decision against the government
- Geofence warrants allow law enforcement to compel tech companies for cell phone location data from individuals within a virtual 'fence'
- The court ruled that people aren't voluntarily sharing private information by using smartphones and apps that collect location data
Full summary
In Chatrie v US, the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement's use of geofence warrants to access smartphone location data requires constitutional privacy protections under the Fourth Amendment. Justice Elena Kagan’s majority opinion held that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cell phone location data, even if they are in public areas. The case focused on tracking an armed bank robber using Google’s optional 'location history' feature, and the court rejected the government's argument that accessing short-term cellphone location information does not constitute a Fourth Amendment search.