The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police who ask telecommunications companies to search their records to spot people whose phones were active near a crime scene are performing a search, and must obtain a warrant.
The justices said police may be able to justify the warrant — that will be for lower courts to decide on a case-by-case basis.
But they said the idea of asking firms to poke through massive amounts of their data to try to spot potential suspects does cross constitutional lines.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing the majority opinion in the 6-3 decision, said the ruling is a recognition of just how central cellphones have become — and how willing users are to turn over personal information to the apps that populate their phones.
The specific case before the justices involved Google’s location history, and the firm’s willingness to pore through that data when police asked for assistance in identifying suspects tied to a particular place and time.
“That database is new, but the principle covering it is not: That principle is instead the one our history has given. The Fourth Amendment must, as ever, protect against unjustified governmental intrusion on the privacy of the individual,” wrote Justice Kagan, an Obama appointee.
She was joined by the court’s other two Democratic appointees and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., a George W. Bush pick, and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, a Trump selection. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch sided with them, but wrote his own opinion.
The case before the justices stemmed from a 2019 armed bank robbery at the Call Federal Credit Union in Midlothian, Virginia. The robber brandished his gun, told the teller he had accomplices who were holding their family hostage, then ordered the manager to empty the safe, making off with $195,000.
He eluded police for months — until they got what’s known as a geofence warrant, which asked Google to prowl through its records and identify those who were near the scene within an hour of the robbery. That ended up including people at homes, a restaurant and even a nearby church.
In the end, Google identified 19 accounts, narrowed that to nine and turned over subscriber information for three. One belonged to Okello Chatrie, who would go on to be convicted and sentenced to nearly 12 years in prison. He challenged the warrant, arguing it violated his Fourth Amendment rights against an unlawful search.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals approved the police tactics, ruling that no Fourth Amendment search had taken place.
Monday’s ruling rejects that idea, and sent the case back to the circuit court for a do-over. The lower court was told to apply Fourth Amendment principles to the case and see whether police did have a valid reason for the warrant.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. led the dissent Monday, criticizing his colleagues for taking the case but then refusing to tackle the big question of whether the search was valid.
He called the case an “irresponsible escapade” that would upend Fourth Amendment law without providing any certainty.
“Today’s decision all but guarantees that we will be cleaning up debris for the foreseeable future,” he wrote.
