By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case concerning the constitutionality of geofence warrants, which gather location data of cellphone users near crime scenes. This case stems from a 2019 bank robbery in Virginia where police used a geofence warrant served on Google to find the perpetrator. While a lower court initially found the warrant to violate privacy rights, it upheld the conviction. The case, which has seen conflicting rulings in federal appeals courts, is expected to be argued later this year and could significantly impact how law enforcement uses this investigative technique.
Read the original article here
Supreme Court will decide on use of warrants that collect the location history of cellphone users. The core of this issue revolves around the upcoming Supreme Court decision concerning the use of warrants to access the location history of cellphone users. Essentially, it’s about whether law enforcement can obtain a warrant that allows them to collect location data from a wide range of phones in a specific area, a practice often referred to as a “geofence warrant.”
What they are essentially doing here is a fishing expedition. Instead of focusing on a specific suspect, they’re casting a broad net, collecting location data from every phone within a designated zone and then sifting through that data in the hope of identifying a potential suspect. It’s mass surveillance, and that’s the heart of the concern.
There’s a strong fear that this could be abused, a concern rooted in the erosion of privacy rights. The sentiment is that once this door is opened, it’s easy for the government to exploit it, and given the current composition of the Supreme Court, there’s a belief that they will side with the government, furthering the reach of surveillance. The history of Fourth Amendment interpretation has increasingly weakened the protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, which makes people worry this will continue.
The issue really hits on the bigger picture of digital privacy. The concern is that both major political parties haven’t prioritized digital privacy enough, creating a situation where our data is vulnerable. While other countries have enacted stricter privacy laws, the US has lagged behind, often ceding ground to corporate interests. This is why it feels like the Supreme Court is just another cog in a machine that’s slowly chipping away at our privacy.
The power of the Supreme Court, as an unelected body, is also part of the concern. The perception is that they are more political actors than they are neutral arbiters of the law. There’s a cynicism that the court will consistently lean towards the outcome that benefits the government. It’s often assumed that the worst-case scenario will occur, and this is another example of a case where this may be true.
It’s worth noting that law enforcement has been able to access cellphone location data for years, through the use of cell tower pings, even before this ruling. This is already a common tool in criminal investigations, but the new practice takes it a step further.
One of the more humorous, yet relevant points of discussion is the idea of embracing a more secure lifestyle, like purchasing a flip phone, and turning off location services in one’s phone. This is a reflection of the feeling that the current technology landscape means that privacy is almost non-existent.
For the most part, the issue is seen as a violation of privacy rights. It’s the equivalent of searching every home in a neighborhood for evidence of a crime, which is seen as inherently invasive and a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.
From a different viewpoint, some people think this could be a good thing. It could set a precedent for these “grey area” issues to be discussed and agreed upon. This may in turn help prevent crimes like kidnapping, human trafficking, and sex crimes.
This is a case where the government is being forced to get a warrant. As long as the police follow all the normal warrant requirements, then there’s a strong argument to be made that it’s not a violation of anyone’s rights. The counter to this view is the concern that the police will find ways around the law, either by working with corporations to purchase the data or through other means.
In essence, the central issue is whether the government should be able to collect vast amounts of location data from innocent people in the hopes of finding a suspect. Even though, police need access to location data when it warrants a warrant.