The US Supreme Court Restricts Use Of Geofence Warrants



This is a big win for privacy rights.

The US Supreme Court just issued a ruling that limits geofence searches by law enforcement agencies, which could have major ramifications for privacy rights across the country. For the uninitiated, this is a relatively recent law enforcement technique in which police tap into the databases of tech companies to see who was near the scene of a crime.

In the 6-3 ruling, the country’s top court said that “an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information.” Justice Elena Kagan said that geofence warrants violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches. Moving forward, law enforcement will have to obtain an actual search warrant to force a tech company into handing over geofence location data. Search warrants require probable cause, which geofence warrants do not.

The case that led to this decision involves a robbery in Virginia, according to a report by NPR. A man stole $195,000 from a bank and the case went cold until detectives served Google with a geofence warrant. They obtained location information of cellphone users near the bank for the hour before and after the crime was committed.

Google pushed back in a way, providing the police with just three of the 19 people tagged as being near the bank. However, one of these three ended up being the culprit.

Okello Chatrie confessed but his attorneys argued in filings that geofence searches violate the Fourth Amendment, as they allow government entities to “search first and develop suspicions later.” In this instance, the geofence search mandated that Google pore through the data of millions of users. In other words, these people were searched without having done anything suspicious.

We don’t know how today’s ruling will impact past court cases that used geofence warrants. The ruling isn’t expected to change Chatrie’s sentence, according to a report by TechCrunch.

As for the government, it argued in its filings that location data isn’t constitutionally protected on the grounds that people “choose” to hand it over by failing to disable system-wide geotracking services and background app tracking on phones.



Source link

  • Related Posts

    The best July 4th sales we found so far

    July 4th sales are typically a precursor to what we’d see during a mid-July Prime Day, but obviously things are flipped around this year. Last week’s big Prime Day sale…

    Google warns EU’s plans to weaken its monopoly could expose user data

    Europe’s push to rein in Big Tech is ramping up, with the European Commission planning to announce new regulations for Google next month. The rules could see Google forced to…

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You Missed

    10 biggest names who could move in NBA offseason, from LeBron James to Scoot Henderson

    10 biggest names who could move in NBA offseason, from LeBron James to Scoot Henderson

    Persona Is Reportedly Getting A “Live-Action” Netflix Adaptation

    Persona Is Reportedly Getting A “Live-Action” Netflix Adaptation

    7 Best Aluminum-Free And Natural Deodorants For Women

    7 Best Aluminum-Free And Natural Deodorants For Women

    With little help, Venezuelans try to rescue themselves: ‘We have only each other’

    With little help, Venezuelans try to rescue themselves: ‘We have only each other’

    Trump’s fixation on voting has had mixed results. He still has ways to affect November’s elections

    Trump’s fixation on voting has had mixed results. He still has ways to affect November’s elections

    Poilievre asks Parliament to probe B.C. ‘condo bailout’ blocking ‘a price correction’

    Poilievre asks Parliament to probe B.C. ‘condo bailout’ blocking ‘a price correction’