WASHINGTON — 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.
Limited time: Save 25% on NBC News subscription
Get exclusive reporting, live Q&As and ad-free reading.
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.
The court rejected the Trump administration’s argument that no warrant is required at all. The majority affirmed that, at a minimum, law enforcement must get a court to sign off on a geofence warrant but did not rule on the underlying warrant in the Virginia case.
The court ruled narrowly in favor of Okello Chatrie, who was convicted of robbing the Midlothian, Virginia, branch of the Call Federal Credit Union in May 2019. The robber was seen holding a cell phone when he entered the bank. After brandishing a gun, he left with $195,000 in cash.
Chatrie was linked to the crime after police officers, with a judicially-approved warrant, obtained information from Google about users in the location at the time who had the “location history” function enabled on their phones. The data showed Chatrie was in or near the location in question 10 minutes before the robbery and departed soon after.
The court stopped short of saying whether the warrant officers sought in Chatrie’s case was legitimate, instead sending the case back to a lower court for further review.
Writing for the court, liberal Justice Elena Kagan said courts have to guard against “undue encroachment” on Fourth Amendment rights.
“The Fourth Amendment must, as ever, protect against unjustified government intrusion on the privacy of the individual,” she added.
The concern as it relates to cell phone location-based searches is that the amount of data available gives the government a “virtual panopticon with which to scrutinize its citizens’ activities,” Kagan wrote.
In dissent, conservative Justice Samuel Alito said he would have found that no warrant is required, calling the ruling an “irresponsible escapade” that the court should never have agreed to hear.
He accused the majority of “striking a pose as a great champion of privacy in the digital age.”
Privacy rights advocates have raised concerns about geofence warrants, calling them a form of dragnet surveillance because the information is not just about one suspect but anyone who was in the location in question. They have warned that such warrants could be used to target disfavored political groups, including protesters.
In the Chatrie case, Google initially provided information about 19 users, and a police officer later narrowed it down.
Chatrie pleaded guilty to federal charges of armed robbery and brandishing a firearm, and he was sentenced to almost 12 years in prison. But he reserved the right to appeal on the issue now decided by the Supreme Court.
When the case returns to lower courts, Chatrie’s lawyers will argue that the warrant was too broad and therefore violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court has, in previous cases, addressed how the Fourth Amendment applies to new technology, ranging from wiretaps and thermal imaging to GPS tracking devices. In a similar case, the court ruled in 2017 that warrants are required to obtain location information derived from data picked up from cellphone towers.