Source: Fortune
Summary
The Supreme Court will decide whether geofence warrants, which allow police to collect location history of cellphone users near a crime scene, violate the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches. The case involves Okello Chatrie, who was caught after police used a geofence warrant to identify his cellphone near the scene of a bank robbery in Virginia. Chatrie’s lawyers argue that the warrant was a violation of his privacy, while prosecutors credit the technique with helping crack cold cases. The court’s decision could have implications for the use of digital surveillance in law enforcement.
Our Reading
The numbers tell one story.
Geofence warrants turn the usual way of pursuing suspects on its head, allowing police to identify people who were in the area of a crime without a suspect in mind. The technique has been used to crack cold cases and identify suspects in killings, but civil libertarians argue that it amounts to a fishing expedition that subjects many innocent people to searches of private records. The Supreme Court’s decision could unleash a wave of similar reverse searches. The case highlights the tension between law enforcement’s need for digital tools and the need to protect individual privacy.
The strategy enters a familiar phase.
As the Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of geofence warrants, it must balance the need for effective law enforcement with the need to protect individual privacy. The court’s decision could have far-reaching implications for the use of digital surveillance in law enforcement. The case is a reminder that the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches must be reinterpreted in the digital age.
Author: Evan Null
