The U.S. Supreme Court recently considered how the Fourth Amendment applies to a geofence warrant requesting cell site location information (CSLI), which includes cell phone location data and location history. In the case of Chatrie v. United States, the Court commented on the widespread use of cell phones, noting that they are “such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy.”
Cell phones collect and store a significant amount of detailed information about their owners’ lives, including location data and history. Many users activate these features to access location-based services, such as mapping and directions, real-time updates on their daily commute, and information about nearby services.
In Chatrie v. United States, local police in Virginia were investigating a crime involving a man who robbed a credit union. The police applied for a geofence warrant directed to Google, requesting CSLI within a certain radius of the credit union.
The warrant described a three-step process for obtaining the location data, which included anonymized data for all cell phones within the geofence, followed by additional data for a narrowed list of phones, and finally, identifying information for the users on the final list. They used this process to identify Okello Chatrie, one of the individuals whose location data was obtained through the warrant.
Related: Mastering the art of sticky notes
Chatrie was subsequently charged with committing the crime. The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether the Fourth Amendment applied to the use of a geofence warrant and whether the search was reasonable given the features of the warrant.
The Court held that the police conducted a search when they gained access to Location History data, stating that an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about their cell phone’s location. It protects against unjustified governmental intrusion on the privacy of the individual.
The determination of whether a search is reasonable depends on the facts of the case. The Court also stated that the Fourth Amendment applies when officials access a third-party tech company’s database of physical location information.
The principle covering this is not new, but rather one that has been established through the Court’s history. The Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the warrant issued and each of its steps were properly described with particularity and supported by probable cause.
Related: AI Accelerates Cyber Threats Law Firms Must Prepare
Individuals should be aware of the agreements they enter into when using cell phone location data and location history, and should exercise their freedom to choose whether to turn on or off these features.
The case of Chatrie v. United States highlights the importance of understanding the terms of service for cell phone location data and location history, and the potential implications for individual privacy. The Court’s decision is a significant development in the area of digital privacy and the use of cell phone location data in criminal investigations.
The outcome of the remanded case and future decisions will depend on various factors. The specifics will be determined by the Court of Appeals.
They will consider the facts of the case and the principles established by the Court.
Leave a Reply