It's very rare for the Supreme Court to take a 4th Amendment case because the law has been so gutted over the past 30 years. So folks were a little nervous when the Court took the geo-fence case, Chatrie. But what a pleasant surprise this morning -- the Court decided Chatrie v. United States in favor of the defense and the 4th Amendment.
Justice Kagan wrote for the Court, joined by the Chief, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Jackson. The reasoning relies heavily on Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). If cell-site data was a search, Location History is the easier call. It's more precise (within about 20 meters, versus cell-site sectors measured in square miles), it logs you hundreds of times a day, and it can tell which floor of the building you're on. The Court called it a personal journal of your movements. That's right.
The third-party doctrine didn't save the government. The Court wasn't buying the idea that you "volunteer" your whereabouts just by leaving Location History on. That's what happens when you use the phone in your pocket for what phones are for.
A few notes for the practitioners.
Gorsuch concurred only in the judgment. He'd toss Katz and decide these cases on property: your data is your "effect," full stop.
Jackson, joined by Sotomayor, would have gone further and struck the warrant itself, which gave officers a roving commission to keep narrowing the list with no real criteria and no magistrate watching.
The Court decided only that a search happened. It sent the case back to the Fourth Circuit to sort out whether this odd multi-step warrant was any good, and Chatrie may still lose on good faith. Alito, dissenting (because he could never bring himself to rule for a criminal defendant), calls the whole thing advisory for that reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment