Oral arguments took place at the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday in the case of Chatrie v. United States, a significant legal battle that will determine whether law enforcement can demand all Google data from individuals near a crime scene without violating the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches.
The case stems from a 2019 robbery at a federal credit union in Virginia. During the investigation, authorities issued a warrant to Google, seeking information about any devices located near the bank at the time of the incident. The district court ruled there was no probable cause for the warrant but allowed it to proceed under the “good-faith exception.” This decision was later upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Now, the Supreme Court is tasked with determining whether Americans have control over their privacy and data held by third-party technology companies, and what steps the government must take if it wants to access digital records.
During the oral arguments, the justices sparked online discussions about whether they fully understand the technological landscape they are debating. In one exchange, Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the necessity of the discussion, suggesting that users could simply turn off location services on their phones to avoid government surveillance.
Roberts asked, “What’s the issue?” He argued that people could choose to disable location tracking if they wished to avoid being monitored.
Adam Unikowsky, who represented Chatrie, countered that Americans should not be required to turn off location services just to avoid government surveillance. Location services are essential for features such as GPS navigation in Google Maps or “find my phone” functionality. Parents use these services to monitor their children’s whereabouts, and friends often share locations when meeting up or for safety reasons when going out with someone they met online.
Roberts responded by stating that the government only gains access to location data if the user chooses to make it public. However, Constitutional Law Professor Anthony Michael Kreis challenged this perspective, saying, “If you don’t want the government to track you, just turn the location off. Well, Chief Justice Roberts, maybe I want my friends to know where to find me if I’m dying in a ditch or lost at a festival without the government knowing. Such an unrealistic question.”
One lawyer humorously added, “But under an originalist interpretation, nothing restricted the government from triangulating your location in real time by intercepting and tracing homing pigeons, which people were, of course, constantly sending and releasing at all times.”
This remark highlighted the challenges of applying originalist interpretations to modern technology, as the justices often rely on historical perspectives that do not account for today’s digital environment. Another justice remarked, “If you don’t want the electorate to track you, establish a docket to announce decisions without explanation.” This comment appeared to be a subtle jab at Roberts, who has been criticized for using the “shadow docket” to keep some court decisions private without public oral arguments.
Tech Crunch security editor Zack Whittaker admitted that he became “annoyed by Roberts’ flawed logic” after just five minutes of listening to the oral arguments. A social media follower joked that Roberts was essentially saying, “Just opt out like our Founders intended…”
The debate surrounding this case reflects broader concerns about the Supreme Court’s evolving relationship with technology and its ability to address contemporary issues. As the court continues to grapple with the implications of digital privacy, the outcome of this case could set a crucial precedent for how the government accesses and uses personal data in the future.
Related Articles:
・Supreme Court growing increasingly ‘secretive’ as its image continues to plummet
・Law school professor unleashes on ‘eye-opening and sadly unsurprising’ Supreme Court
・Supreme Court engulfed in ‘chaos’ as ‘tensions’ among justices explode in public
