- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
The case involving a Virginia bank robbery is the latest example of the justices wrestling with how to apply constitutional protections to new technology.
In a ruling applying individual constitutional protections to new technology, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that sweeping use of cell phone location data requires a warrant.
The case focused on a Virginia bank robbery, where a conviction rested in part on cell phone location information law enforcement received from Google through a so-called geofence warrant. These allow law enforcement to obtain data showing cell phone users who were in the vicinity of a crime scene, even if they are not targeting a specific suspect.
The court, divided 6-3, found that broad geofence surveillance constitutes a search under the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Misleading headline: The Court didn’t actually say that a warrant was required for these geofence searches.
What the court actually said: a request for geofenced location data addressed to a service provider is actually a search that could require a warrant. These requests are not just subpoenas for business records.
The supreme court sent the case back down to the circuit court to determine whether a warrant was specifically required in this case.
When it comes to searches, a warrant is usually required, but there are a number of complicated exceptions for “reasonable” searches where no warrant is needed.