Supreme Court wary of barring police from phone searches to find crime suspects
WASHINGTON— A divided Supreme Court heard arguments Monday over whether police use of phone surveillance data violates the Constitution’s protection against “unreasonable searches.”
Most justices were cautious about barring investigators from getting precise location history from Google or cellphone providers if it would help find a murderer or bank robber.
“I’m trying to understand why this was bad police work,” Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh told Odell Chatrie, the attorney representing the defendant.
A police detective in Virginia was looking for clues to find a bank robber and asked a judge for a “geo-restriction order” telling Google to turn over data from phones located near the bank at the time of the robbery, police said.
“He ended up coming up with three names,” Kavanaugh said, including Chatrie, who pleaded guilty. He said these searches have proven practical for finding criminals.
But other justices said the court should generally disapprove of digital searches of vast databases held by private companies.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Neil M. Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett, what do you think of the emails or Google photos?
All three said this information deserves more privacy protections than location data.
In the past, the court said: 4th Amendment It protects against government searches that violate a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” The two sides in this case differ on whether digital searches of location data violate privacy rights.
Gorsuch said the government is generally skeptical of large-scale searches unless they have a specific suspect.
“Is it right to search all rooms of the hotel, all warehouses or all bank safes for the stolen pearl necklace for a weapon?” he asked.
Deputy Attorney General Eric Feigin said the government probably wouldn’t be able to obtain search warrants for entire storage units or hotel rooms, but Google search is different because it has a software filter.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. He proposed a narrow-scope decision.
Chatrie had perhaps unknowingly agreed to Google storing location history data. Roberts said he could have turned off public location data and therefore lost his right to object.
“If you don’t want the government to have your location history, turn this off now,” he said.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. He also had the same opinion. Chatrie “voluntarily disclosed information regarding his whereabouts to Google,” he said.
Eight years ago Roberts wrote a letter: Opinion for 5-4 majority He said investigators needed a search warrant before they could obtain 127 days of cell tower records that helped convict a Michigan man of several store robberies.
Four of the court’s liberal justices joined that majority, but only two of them (Sotomayor and Elena Kagan) remained on the court.
Kavanaugh, Barrett and Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson have since joined the court.
National Assn. Criminal Defense Lawyers and other civil liberties groups supported Chatrie’s objection to the government’s use of geofencing warrants.
Washington attorney Adam Unikowski told the court that Chatrie’s location history “has a reasonable expectation of privacy, given both its sensitive and revealing nature and the fact that it is stored in his password-protected account.” “There was no reasonable basis for searching the virtual private papers of every single person within the geographical boundary simply because of their proximity to crime.”
Feigin, the Justice Department lawyer, said the decision against Chatrie “will hinder the investigation of kidnappings, robberies, shootings and other crimes.”
However, he acknowledged that email should be protected because it involves personal communication.
The justices will rule on Chatrie v. USA by the end of June.
