On April 27, the Supreme Court will hear the case Chatrie v. United States, involving police access to geofence data—a digital record of a person’s location. This case is expected to address pivotal issues regarding the Fourth Amendment’s application in the digital age. The ruling could define or limit the legality of “reverse” searches, which have become a significant investigative tactic in law enforcement.
Previously, the Supreme Court tackled digital privacy in the 2017 Carpenter v. United States case. In Carpenter, the court determined that police must obtain a warrant before accessing cell-site location information (CSLI) for over seven days, emphasizing an individual’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.”
However, the current case centers on geofence data, usually collected by mobile apps, as illustrated in the Chatrie case, which involves data from Google’s Location History service. Law enforcement can request this data to identify potential suspects when none have been specified initially. For instance, in Chatrie, police requested a list of users near a bank during a robbery from Google.
The central legal question is whether accessing geofence data without a warrant infringes on Fourth Amendment rights. One point of contention is whether users voluntarily provide this data, as addressed under the third-party doctrine. Unlike CSLI, which is automatically generated as phones connect to cell towers, geofence data involves user interaction, such as opting-in to app-based location services.
Moreover, the practice of requesting geofence data raises the issue of general warrants, given that the Chatrie request concerned a location rather than a specific suspect. Chatrie argues that this approach violates the constitutional prohibition of general warrants, which necessitate specificity in describing the search’s focus.
While Google has since altered its policy to store Location History data only on users’ devices, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case could have lasting implications on various digital privacy issues, such as the use of automated license plate readers and government procurement of digital records. The court’s ruling will therefore be crucial in defining the future of the digital Fourth Amendment and our understanding of constitutional privacy in the digital age.
For more details on the case, visit SCOTUSblog.