Supreme Court rules privacy protections apply to cellphone location history
摘要
美国最高法院 6 比 3 裁定宪法隐私保护适用于手机用户的位置历史，在一起银行劫案的地理围栏令案例中判决生效。法官 Kagan 表示，普通使用手机时不会放弃隐私期望，即使参与 Google 位置历史。法官 Alito 持不同意见。警方用地理围栏令查出 Chatrie 手机位置，获取搜查令在家中找到现金证据。案件送回下级法院处理，最高法院未决定是否符合第四修正案。
荐读理由
通过这一判决可直接迁移到手机隐私工程项目中：用 Kagan 观点（用户并非向 Google 共享隐私、第三方向政府传递普通行为）指导数据收集架构，避免技术上默认的第三方共享风险
原文
Supreme Court rules constitutional privacy protections apply to cellphone users’ location history
Activists and demonstrators wait outside the Supreme Court for the Justices to release opinions, in Washington, Monday, June 29, 2026. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Share
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court held Monday that constitutional privacy protections extend to cellphone location information, ruling in the case of a bank robber whose identity was discovered through a geofence warrant.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the 6-3 court that people don’t forfeit expectations of privacy even when they opt into Google’s location history.
“A cellphone user is not to be viewed as sharing private information with third parties—which then can be freely passed on to the government—just by doing the ordinary things cellphone users do,” Kagan wrote.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote in dissent that Okello Chatrie had no expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turned over to Google.
The decision is the court’s latest effort to apply a constitutional provision ratified in 1791 to technology the nation’s founders could not have envisioned.
Police obtained a geofence warrant after a bank robbery in a suburb of Richmond, Virginia, and used it to locate cellphones that were near the bank around the time it was robbed in May 2019.
One of those phones belonged to Chatrie, who had eluded the police until they turned to the powerful technological tool.
Related Stories
Judge seeks stronger Trump assurances on plans for DC golf course project
What to know about the challenges ahead for the children rescued from an Ohio home
125 passengers and crew hit with highly contagious stomach virus on cruise from San Francisco
The warrant kick-started the investigation. After determining that Chatrie was among those near the Call Federal Credit Union in Midlothian at the time, police obtained a search warrant for his home. They found nearly $100,000 in cash, including bills wrapped in bands signed by the bank teller.
Chatrie pleaded guilty to robbing the bank and was sentenced to nearly 12 years in prison. His lawyers argued on appeal that none of the evidence should have been used against him.
They challenged the warrant as a violation of his privacy because it allowed authorities to gather the location history of people near the bank without having any evidence they had anything to do with the robbery. Prosecutors argued that Chatrie had no expectation of privacy because he voluntarily opted into Google’s location history.
The Supreme Court did not decide Monday whether the search complied with the Fourth Amendment, which bans unreasonable searches and seizures. It sent the case back to a lower court for more work.
A federal judge had ruled that the search violated Chatrie’s rights, but allowed the evidence to be used because the officer who applied for the warrant reasonably believed he was acting properly.
The federal appeals court in Richmond upheld the conviction in a fractured ruling. In a separate case, the federal appeals court in New Orleans ruled that geofence warrants “are general warrants categorically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.”
mailto
这条对你有帮助吗？