Chatrie v. United States  The U.S. Supreme Court set the first warrant requirement for Americans’ location data in 2018. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority in Carpenter v. United States, declared that when the government “tracks the location of a cell phone it achieves near-perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user.” Though the Court’s ruling set a warrant standard for the extraction of historic cell phone data from cell towers, Carpenter failed to become a general precedent for using other means to geolocate Americans – such as tracking people through their phones. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that has the potential to become the next landmark ruling. If the sharp questions of the Justices are any indication, they may well limit the government’s ability to conduct large geolocation sweeps that can compromise the privacy of large numbers of Americans. The case involves Okello Chatrie, convicted of bank robbery near Richmond, Virginia, after local authorities used a geofence warrant for the area of that crime and picked up Chatrie’s phone at the scene. Hundreds of other people within the area geofenced by police were also pinned, including guests at a Hampton Inn, residents in an apartment house and a retirement home, and diners at a Ruby Tuesday restaurant. What’s the big deal, you ask, if this maneuver helped catch a bank robber? As a lower court judge noted, with such a procedure – this time a warrant issued to Google – everyone within the designated perimeter “has effectively been tailed.” Even when such technology is used for a clear purpose, such as locating a bank robber, the precedent opens the way for the government to track Americans’ associative activities, from protests to political activity to worship. In its questioning, the Supreme Court recognized the Orwellian possibilities of this technology. “What’s to prevent the government from using this to find out the identities of everybody at a particular church, a particular political organization,” Chief Justice Roberts asked the government’s lawyer. “What are the restraints that would prevent that from becoming a problem?” Adam G. Unikowsky, Chatrie’s attorney, characterized geofence warrants as fishing expeditions that “search first and develop suspicions later.” Unikowsky told the Justices: “The technology may be novel, but the constitutional problem it presents is not. The potential for abuse is breathtaking: The government need only draw a geofence around a church, a political rally or a gun shop, and it can compel a search of every user’s records to learn who was there.” The Justice Department lawyer had a tough time arguing that Chatrie did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for location history data that his phone shared with Google. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor asked questions showing a concern that the government’s position could be expanded to include emails, photos, and documents, as well as location data. The Justices also questioned the extent to which Americans are even aware that their cell phones enable tech companies to track their locations in a way that can be shared with the government. These questions echoed the PPSA amicus brief, in which we told the Justices: “Letting a plumber into your house to fix a sink does not mean you have no expectation of privacy when the police come knocking.” A little levity came to the proceedings when Justice Amy Coney Barrett said she was shocked by how many ads she saw on her phone that were triggered by her visits to specific locations. “I need to check my location settings, plainly,” she said, triggering laughter throughout the courtroom. Judging by the questioning, it appears that this case may, at the very least, lead to some tightening of mass geofencing. PPSA hopes that all the Justices will agree with our brief in which we declared: “The Founders would have been shocked to see privacy brought to this sorry state.” Comments are closed.
|
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed