US Supreme Court reviews police use of cell location data

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/27/us/politics/supreme-court-cell-data-geofence.html

by unethical_ban • 3 months ago

257 158 3 months ago

https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/27/politics/geofencing-supreme-g...

mothballed2• 3 months ago

With parallel construction on the menu, this is largely academic. There is zero percent chance police and those who profit from their patronage will give up cell location sweeps.

Detrytus• 3 months ago

You cannot do a parallel construction if the telecom operator refuses to share data with you in the first place. And if SCOTUS makes the right decision here they will have legal grounds to refuse.

mothballed2• 3 months ago

Again, I hope your position here is something more than 'largely academic.' Optimistically it may be, history tells us AT&T Mobile, T-mobile, Verizon, etc (pretty much all the major carriers except perhaps Dish) have been caught selling data for a buck and have still only pledged not to sell to agreggators (not law enforcement). There is incontrovertible evidence major carriers are ready and willing, and indeed have sold this to patrons they can profit from.

In theory your comment may be a rebuttal to the 'largely academic' assertion I made, in practice it's largely a distinction without much difference. Your rebuttal is a pretty remarkable, eccentric claim in the context of the vast majority of telcos that will share the data for a profit (as I put it, 'profit from the patronage [of the police]'). Whether the request comes in the form of a warrant -- again -- largely academic in such case. Your assertion requires some strong data to overcome the evidence to the contrary, if it is intended as a rebuttal.

It's also worth noting illegally executed warrants don't stop you from getting the data. I've had cops force a hospital to search me before, then get the warrant actually signed after they did it. It didn't stop the hospital from executing the warrant, it just means they evidence couldn't be directly used against me. That's another lever they have, illegally execute a warrant, get the evidence they can't use in court, then parallel construction. Sure your lawyer can argue "the fruits of this warrant have to be tossed out" but it doesn't mean dick -- they already secretly used it to get other evidence that won't be tossed out.

superkuh3• 3 months ago

I've been listening to this live and it's clear how Kavenaugh will vote regardless of the validity of the arguments. His mind is set and he's well into coming up with barely related hypotheticals introducing exigency into a case where there was none (the geofencing request for spying on a large group of people was done a week after the crime occured).

ceejayoz4• 3 months ago

SCOTUS has been this way for a while now.

They start with the desired decision and work backwards to justify it.

seanw444• 3 months ago

Or they refuse to hear cases that they know will go the way they don't want.

rayiner12• 3 months ago

You're presupposing there's a valid argument for the other side. The text of the fourth amendment clearly connects the scope of privacy to property rights:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Cell location data belongs to AT&T and Verizon, not the accused individual. As to such third-party data, there's a general principle rooted in Roman law that third parties can be compelled to provide documents in their possession to aid a court proceeding: https://commerciallore.com/2015/06/04/a-brief-history-of-sub... ("In an early incarnation of mandatory minimum sentencing there were only two offences that automatically attracted the death penalty, treason and failing to answer a subpoena. Subpoenas as a tool of justice were considered so important that failing to answer it was a most egregious violation of civic duty. A person accused of murder may or may not be guilty, but if a person refused to answer a subpoena then they were seen as denying Jupiter’s justice itself.").

Those principles were incorporated into what's called the third-party doctrine half a century ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine. But by then it was already an ancient principle.

superkuh3• 3 months ago

Ah, you're a bit confused about the case the court is hearing. This is explcitly not about telco basestation records. It is about the records for location data recorded on the smart phones of individuals. GPS recorded on their personal property, not multi-lateration from telco owned third party property. It's all very accessible if you give it a listen. It's streaming live on youtube.

JumpCrisscross• 3 months ago

there's a general principle rooted in Roman law

There goes my fucking morning :P

triceratops2• 3 months ago

Well this court has never overturned decisions made 50 years ago.

dataflow5• 3 months ago

You're presupposing there's a valid argument for the other side.

How about this part of the amendment?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches shall not be violated"

Isn't treating people like suspects (investigating them, searching their belongings, tracking them, etc.) merely because a third party claimed (and of course GPS is never inaccurate) that they passed within some vague proximity of a crime scene a violation of their security in their persons? Do you really have reasonable suspicion that every individual among the dozens (or more) you dragged into your search may have committed a crime if it's clear the others are there for unrelated reasons?

kmeisthax• 3 months ago

If you take the 4th Amendment to specifically and solely bar inconveniencing property owners without a warrant, then you are arguing that the 4th Amendment is a water sandwich. When the 4th Amendment was actually written, it was not actually possible for the investigative powers of the state to not inconvenience a property holder. But we've been able to violate people's right to privacy without them even knowing for almost a century now.

Furthermore, the last major SCOTUS case regarding this issue[0] had some very interesting dissenting opinions specifically on the question of "Does the 4th Amendment only guarantee property rights". Justice Thomas made the exact same argument you made. Justice Gorsuch took your argument and twisted it inside out. He specifically argued that because the 4th Amendment is a protection on property, the third-party doctrine should be thrown out entirely, and that you should still own your personal information even if you have to lend it to a phone company in order for them to connect you.

So yes, there are valid arguments for the other side, even in the "4A only protects property" regime.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States

cosmicgadget2• 3 months ago

You're presupposing there's a valid argument for the other side.

Typically a good presupposition when the Supreme Court decides to hear the case.

Cell tower info isn't at issue here.

Refreeze5224• 3 months ago

And why should we defer to ancient principles in a case regarding cell phone metadata that can be used in innumerable ways to violate privacy? To me it seems obvious that if the 4th Amendment were written today by anyone other than cops, this exact case would have been covered.

cosmicgadget2• 3 months ago

I'm glad he doesn't just apply Hollywood thriller plots to his arguments for unchecked executive power.

ece2• 3 months ago

He does have his Kavanaugh stop legacy to uphold.

unethical_ban2• 3 months ago

My biggest gripe is with the idea that any data shared with a third party is not subject to privacy.

With cameras going up everywhere, operated by the government and with AI enabled, I wonder if geofencing is the biggest privacy threat we have.

cucumber3732842• 3 months ago

With cameras going up everywhere, operated by the government and with AI enabled, I wonder if geofencing is the biggest privacy threat we have.

There's a cynical joke in the refrigeration/hvac industry to the tune of "it's good for the environment as long as DuPont has a monopoly on it/the 3rd world isn't making it" in reference to refrigerants' reliable pattern of being identified as bad for the environment and get regulated away right as patents expire, manufacturing proliferates and they and the equipment that uses them become cheap.

Geofencing warrants and cell location data collection give me the same sort of "they're getting rid of it to move onto the next thing" vibes. Not that we shouldn't get rid of it.

ck2• 3 months ago

if geofencing for all people in the area of a crime becomes legal

well then we know everyone who went to Epstein Island from their cellphone records

Congress must subpoena them ALL

especially the one that went all the way back to Trump Tower, who was it?

https://www.wired.com/video/watch/we-tracked-every-visitor-t...

pocksuppet4• 3 months ago

Congress also has the ability to override most laws, as long as they don't violate the constitution. If they make a law that says "the police cannot use cell location data" that will be the law.

reader9274• 3 months ago

What's the difference between police looking up geofence data for the bank before and after a robbery to see who was there, and checking the bank's outdoor cameras to see what license plates were there?

Alive-in-2025• 3 months ago

The difference is ubiquitous surveillance, which is well known to lead to false positives and inhibits freedom and protest. A world where we are all under surveillance and people actually want to increase it is not a free world.

gravypod2• 3 months ago

One would be scope. There's a big difference between a security camera next to a secure facility (bank, police evidence facility, school) and a 1 mi radius circle around that facility. Security cameras around a bank only track stuff within a field of view from the bank. A cell geofence could be millions of people if it's drawn in midtown.

Another would be incentives. There's no reason to collect cell location data for everyone if you aren't able to use it for anything. I think just the fact that we are all monitored constantly is its own violation of our rights. We should have laws banning these practices.

gruez2• 3 months ago

Security cameras around a bank only track stuff within a field of view from the bank. A cell geofence could be millions of people if it's drawn in midtown.

Given the ubiquity of security cameras they can just canvas local businesses and ask them to give it up. Given that warrants are involved, they can't even refuse.

rayiner12• 3 months ago

Here's the text of the fourth amendment. Could you explain how "scope" and "incentives" are relevant distinguishing factors under that?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

As relevant here, there's two pieces. The threshold requirement is some sort of ownership. The right exists with respect to "their persons, houses, papers, and effects." Assuming digital data constitutes "papers," the accused has to show that it's "their" papers. The hypothetical you're responding to compares the bank's camera footage with the cell phone company's location information. Those seem indistinguishable for that prong.

You have a reasonable argument that "scope" and "incentives" are relevant to the second prong of what's "unreasonable." But you don't get there if you don't get past the first prong, right?

cestith2• 3 months ago

Well, one is a search and seizure of data about a great deal more people from a third party that is not the victim.

superkuh3• 3 months ago

A bank's cameras cannot see into private spaces in unrelated buildings as is the explicit situation in this case where most of the people caught in the general dragnet were inside a church some distance away. And to be clearer, the data search is being done on the GPS recordings of personal property (not basestation multi-lateration records). This is the private space being searched. It's like if you carried around a journal and wrote down everywhere you went. Now the government is arguing they can draw arbitrary large general regions and read everyone's personal diary even in situations without any exigency.

seizethecheese• 3 months ago

This is an excellent point and I largely agree. I do wonder though: do we have a reasonable expectation of privacy when using Google mobile services?

foxyv• 3 months ago

In addition to the scope and specificity arguments, there is also the reasonable expectation of privacy. Geofence warrants catch up a ton of innocent citizens and violate their 4th amendment right to be secure in their persons and papers.

Outdoor cameras around a bank, and license plates both have their own justifications. Outdoor cameras surveillance is in an area with no reasonable expectation of privacy. License plates are mandated for liability and anti-theft purposes. Your personal phone is both private and has no other pre-textual reason for law enforcement to access it.

traderj0e4• 3 months ago

The bank doesn't have access to my phone's camera

sega_sai• 3 months ago

From the article: "Google says it stopped responding to geofence warrants last year, because the company no longer stores such data and instead keeps location data on each user’s device. But law enforcement has made geofence requests of other tech companies, including Apple, Lyft, Snapchat, Uber, Microsoft and Yahoo"

That explains the changes Google did to the Timeline and why you can't see it in the browser anymore. That is great from them actually.

tucnak• 3 months ago

Google never gets credit for shit like this, or their results in zero-knowledge maths and implementations, which are genuine public service beyond immediate productization.

idle_zealot2• 3 months ago

From a factual standpoint it's good to acknowledge that pro-privacy work. From a standpoint of overall evaluating the actions, goals, incentives, and impacts of the company, they mean basically nothing. They are a surveillance advertising company, they will never, and can never, have a positive impact on privacy or human rights. To do so would destroy them.

bigyabai• 3 months ago

FWIW, I think Google is overly-hated, but it's hard to frame them as a bleeding-heart altruist. Much like Apple and Microsoft, they have every incentive to work with the government and basically no obligation to individual consumers. It feels likely that these decisions are made to cover their own ass, and not out of overwhelming respect for Android users.

59percentmore• 3 months ago

They don't get credit for this particular thing because many, many users lost years of their location data in the transition, and most of the rest had theirs corrupted. It was a poorly-executed transition that screwed a lot of people, so even they themselves don't tout it much.

GeekyBear3• 3 months ago

If Google had decided to move on this back when people first started being falsely accused of crimes based on geofence data, they might be more deserving of credit.

For instance, in 2018:

Avondale Man Sues After Google Data Leads to Wrongful Arrest for Murder

https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/google-geofence-locatio...

b00ty4breakfast• 3 months ago

Nobody is going to be worried about how you never litter if you're constantly kicking puppies and biting babies on the nose.

Gagarin19174• 3 months ago

People are to busy labeling them and the rest of tech as Far Right to care.

binkHN• 3 months ago

Completely concur with this, though I do miss being able to browse for places in Google Maps and easily see when I was last there. This functionality disappeared when my location information went local only.

dataflow5• 3 months ago

I think the trigger was this: https://www.axios.com/2022/07/01/google-delete-location-hist...

GeekyBear3• 3 months ago

Correct.

Google moved to finally address this after the press started focusing on how hording location data could put women who visited reproductive healthcare clinics in legal jeopardy.

Privacy advocates fear Google will be used to prosecute abortion seekers

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/11/1110391316/google-data-aborti...

Nemo_bis• 3 months ago

Google got caught in the aftermath of the Carpenter vs. US ruling. https://www.techdirt.com/2023/12/18/google-disrupts-geofence...

By stopping that one specific way they supported warrantless surveillance, Google probably managed to make the current round of litigation moot so that Google won't suffer a negative ruling on the merits. They can start all over again in a slightly different way once the attention goes down a bit.

xyzzyz2• 3 months ago

I hate this change. I loved how the original Timeline worked, and now it's unusable. I don't care about courts subpoeaning my data. I'd love to opt in to previous status quo. I don't care about the loss of "privacy" in the context that was never important to me.

Most people are like me: they don't care about being protected from the courts, because the courts don't pose risk to them, and as a matter of statistical fact, they are correct.

shadowgovt5• 3 months ago

The problem is, unfortunately, those data lakes are in the category "safe until they aren't." Germany has some of the most restrictive data collection laws in the European sphere, for example, because they know that the courts (and executive) don't pose a risk to most Germans... Until suddenly they do, and the only defense is not having aggregated the data in the first place.

To be clear, no disagreement with your self-risk-assessment, and reasonable people can disagree on where their paranoia threshold is.

idle_zealot2• 3 months ago

This position is insanely illiberal. This isn't about your individual safety, or how willing you as an individual are to abdicate your right to privacy. It's about the knock-on effect of living under panopticon conditions, the chilling effect, the loss of trust, and the nearly unlimited potential for abuse. This individualistic attitude makes it so easy to divide and conquer each and every one of your rights and protections, and will leave you less free as an individual than if you were willing to look at the bigger picture and stand up for rights you don't personally care about.

Cider99862• 3 months ago

Most people don't have your luxury of not worrying about government overreach.

It sure would have been useful for governments in the South to grab the location data of enslaved people trying to escape—would they, like the average user today, have known to turn off these settings?

It's great for Texas to buy data from brokers about women trying to access reproductive healthcare across state lines from apps carelessly sharing it. The courts don't pose a risk to you until the law changes and suddenly they do.

This is about the government getting data through a loophole that violates the 4th amendment—the difference between a society that collects everything and presumes guilt, and one that targets specific people when they're suspected of a specific crime.

pocksuppet4• 3 months ago

If you'd like, I can develop a product that will track your location and report it to the police in real-time for you.

ece2• 3 months ago

Only two of these companies actually needs your location data to function, it's Uber and Lyft. There's a reasonable case telcos might also need the data for network purposes, but cell tower data isn't going to be as accurate as GPS. It's safe to say everyone else is basically collecting data for serving ads even if they say otherwise.

The opposite of dragnet surveillance, which is what flock and geofencing warrants are: data aggregated and shared without the consent of the user, is data collection minimization even when done for security or apps.

belthesar• 3 months ago

but cell tower data isn't going to be as accurate as GPS

Worth noting that 6G MIMO beamforming requires being able to calculate incredibly accurate location information in order to tune the signal towards your device. I don't know enough to be able to speak more in depth about this, but my guess would be that the adage of cell AP based aGPS is likely to be able to surface far more accurate device location than before.

mrktf• 3 months ago

but cell tower data isn't going to be as accurate as GPS

My knowledge in this topic is not deep, but cell precision should be pretty accurate, because modern cell tower areas are much smaller, then to have well tuned beamformer it need to have relative precise angles between antennas and know signal travel time (distance). I think it should achieve something 30 or 15 meter precision (doing assumption that distance is accurate in 50/100ns order)

JadeNB• 3 months ago

Only two of these companies actually needs your location data to function, it's Uber and Lyft.

I disagree that they need my location data. I am perfectly capable of telling them the location where I want a pick-up, and they are perfectly capable of imposing penalties if I incorrectly report it. Just like happened with cabs in the old days, who were somehow able to pick me up without real-time location tracking.

(Not to say that you shouldn't be able to just turn on location tracking if that's what you want to do, but there's no reason that they can't function without it.)

baranul• 3 months ago

Google has proven to not be a company to trust about privacy. It's their business model, along with selling data. A few good will public relations moves is likely nothing compared to the unseen dirt and deals they are doing.

yieldcrv• 3 months ago

Google is a largely autonomous machine, advancement within Google requires people to do visibly disruptive projects and prove initiative, and the next person that wants to advance may look to the same project to undo it

Leadership has their own separate causes that may form your view of what Google’s business model is, but more importantly its at the expense of ignoring the rest of Google and no interest in steering it because they are in the same system

A machine

jauntywundrkind• 3 months ago

There's a nice map on Bluesky of what area of data Google is being asked to hand over. To be honest it's not actually huge. Personally though, that feels like not a great safeguard, not enough to make me ok with this. https://bsky.app/profile/audrelawdamercy.blacksky.app/post/3...

Worth noting that Google has changed its practice since 2019, supposedly, to keep location data on device, not accessible to them. However I have little doubt the cellphone carriers are also available to provide this data. https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/5/24172204/google-maps-delet...

Governments rapidly turning data into a liability. Data is the new oil is out, data is the new toxic waste is in. The consumer sentiment continues to get worse and worse as it becomes clearer and clearer that we are being intruded upon at will. It would be excellent to see some progress, in expanding & respecting our human rights to privacy.

buzer• 3 months ago

It would be excellent to see some progress, in expanding & respecting our human rights to privacy.

There are many laws in place in EU which forbids many kind of practices which infringe on privacy, but the issue is that governments don't really enforce them proactively. And in some cases where they are the ones breaking them (e.g. by enacting law that is not compatible with EU Charter or ECHR) it will take long time to get judgement which forbids the practice.

Often the path is that you complain to DPA, you appeal to court, you appeal to higher court, (repeat last step X times), during court appeals you may need to wait for CJEU ruling and finally you might be able to file appeal to ECtHR.

In one "recent" case from Finland the original DPA decision was issued in 8/2020. I'm not sure how long this exact case took, but there are some recent decisions which took 5 years to issue. It was appealed to administrative court and court made request to CJEU on 11/2021. CJEU gave ruling on 6/2023. Administrative court gave ruling on 12/2023. It was appealed and higher administrative court gave ruling on 6/2025.

So it could take 10 years to annul an illegal law or practice.

nekusar2• 3 months ago

As long as a judge issued the warrant for geofence data, I see less wrong with it. It passed judicial scrutiny, AND can itself be challenged.

As of now, most of these jurisdictions are a FLOCK search away, with absolutely no warrant, oversight, warrant, or anything. Like, all of these abominations https://maps.deflock.org/?lat=37.5620&lng=-77.4559&zoom=11.2...

chromacity• 3 months ago

As long as a judge issued the warrant for geofence data, I see less wrong with it. It passed judicial scrutiny, AND can itself be challenged.

The cops say "someone committed a crime in this area, we need to find the perp". They can pretty much say this for any part of the town at any given time. A judge signs off on the warrant, because why wouldn't they? You don't get to challenge anything: no one is going to tell you "hey, your phone was in that area, come to the courthouse and make your case if you think the police shouldn't be given that info".

nekusar2• 3 months ago

Again the key here is "Due Process".

Im comparing due process with a judges' signature, compared to shit like FLOCK and other non-search warranted processes. And if the warrant was deemed wrongfully granted, the case itself can be dismissed or mistrial.

How much corporate data was just purchased rather than search warranted? Data brokers and parallel construction is a lot larger issue.

And about the cops giving that "someone committed a crime in this area, we need to find the perp" - pig's will always give bullshit reasons. Thats why I went to the judge's determination, rather than oinkers demanding everything and manufacturing whatever they want.

adgjlsfhk1• 3 months ago

imo there should be a requirement for the gov to tell you within a reasonable time period (a year?) whenever a search warrant is granted for your data. currently there is no ability to check the government because you never learn that you were searched.

fusslo2• 3 months ago

I listened to the arguments, here's my notes live: --

One justice asked petitioner that because 'If you don't want the government to have your location history, you just flip that off. You dont have to have that feature on your phone. so whats the issue?'

They continue to talk about the Terms of Service stating that Google will comply with legitimate government requests. And both the petitioner and justices seem to agree that ANY data would be then up for grabs by the government (without a warrant) if it is stored in the cloud (including email, docs, photos, calendar, business records, etc). Sotomayor points out that the government would need NO warrant to access these records.

The google feature doesn't exist anymore. But in the amicus brief some 30 providers still have features in similar pattern of record storage. 'Google can track you down to 3 feet'. Google had to search "500 million" accounts for the search in question.

Justice Jackson asks why they aren't looking at the case as a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'? The petitioner agrees, and points out that the data is protected by a password. So the data is NOT public.

"Data on the network is property." - how we get laws against stealing data/trespassing data

Probable Cause was an interesting argument. about 90 minutes in. It went by too quickly. The justice seems to say that google's servers are one 'place'. The justice also sees the output of 3 people despite google 'searching' 19 people as the only people who matter.

Responder is leaning heavy into the 'consent' for google to store location history. Is it possible to turn location history off on modern android phones? Responder also argues that because you're in public AT SOME POINT, then your location data is no different than a cctv data pointing at the street. Then a justice interrupts to make the responder say that YES the government CAN perform these searches on anyone it wants any time it wants without a warrant. For example people who seek abortion, or were at a political event. And the responder agrees!

Responder says the email, photos, and docs still need a warrant because they're like your thoughts or mail, where location is different because people are 'constantly advertising' their location to google.

To me, the responder is arguing two things:

1. That whatever you do in public is always available without a warrant

2. Your location history stored in google (or others) are generated in public and are therefore don't require a warrant.

Responder says location records are records google creates on your phone. Justice asks why no one of the 500M people who were searched have complained? (idk, maybe because we have no way of knowing we were searched?)

vel0city2• 3 months ago

The justice seems to say that google's servers are one 'place'.

So a large apartment tower housing, I dunno, thousands, of families can entirely be searched because it's just "one place"? Chances are this even multiple buildings, so really more like a whole apartment complex. Sorry, someone in building 56 was maybe selling drugs, we're here to dig through your wardrobe even though you're in building 12 half a block away..."

They might as well apply for warrants as "Sol 3, Earth".

magicalist3• 3 months ago

And both the petitioner and justices seem to agree that ANY data would be then up for grabs by the government (without a warrant) if it is stored in the cloud (including email, docs, photos, calendar, business records, etc).

You must have misheard this as this is not true country wide (see US v Warshak) and in practice the government treats these as needing a warrant because of that and the time requirement in the Stored Communications Act (and any major provider will explicitly refuse handing over content data without a warrant).

Gorsuch in particular thinks the Third Party Doctrine is bullshit and is happy to write that down (like in Carpenter) and today seemed to be trotting that out again (though I only read the beginning of arguments).

fusslo2• 3 months ago

No, I did not. Listen for yourself.

Later the same question was put to the government, and they admitted the same: under the government's theory a warrant would not be needed.

tantalor• 3 months ago

That whatever you do in public is always available without a warrant

That's not relevant to this case.

Suppose I'm traveling in the back of a van with blacked windows. Nobody can see me. No camera in the world will record me. They are arguing that I still have no expectation of privacy, which is ridiculous. Maybe if you are walking around with your face visible, sure, but that's a important condition.

Another problem with this argument is facial recognition is far from perfect.

IncandescentGas• 3 months ago

Justice asks why no one of the 500M people who were searched have complained?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

idatum• 3 months ago

'If you don't want the government to have your location history, you just flip that off. You dont have to have that feature on your phone. so whats the issue?'
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-location-tracking-data-w...

Can someone catch me up on how the settlement against Google where turning off location on your phone didn't stop them from collecting location data, plays in this Supreme Court case?

Isn't this like cell tower data, where the user doesn't have a choice if their location data is collected?

CGMthrowaway• 3 months ago

Simplest way I have boiled it down in my head (what's actually being decided that is- there is a lot of ancillary question and discussion above that isn't ultimately relevant to the case at hand):

Is your location history

A) a bank record (less protected), or

B) a "digital diary" (strongly protected) ?

Gagarin19174• 3 months ago

Why the hell are bank records less protected in the first place? Banks should be able to always ask for a warrant.

HardCodedBias2• 3 months ago

Most people don't understand how powerless police are to find criminals. That they catch them at all is often amazing. I have firsthand knowledge of this from a tragic loss in my family. The investigation was severely hindered because investigators could not utilize cell location data, despite knowing someone was present at the scene. Police spent an extensive amount of time trying to identify them without success. When the identity was eventually discovered through entirely different avenues, it confirmed the individual had a cell phone on them. The location data would have resolved the identification trivially. We should enable this capability and put strict "guardrails" on its use.

cobertos• 3 months ago

Huh? This is how it already works, cell companies themselves have this data. And they sell it.

The "strict guardrails" don't work. Never did.

HardCodedBias2• 3 months ago

You are entirely incorrect.

Here is the LLM's summary of the current legal issue at hand:

Attempting to determine the identity of an unknown individual co-located with a victim at a specific time requires a reverse-location query. Because the Supreme Court has not yet established a unified national doctrine for these searches post-Carpenter, lower courts are highly fragmented. Many magistrates systematically refuse to authorize geofence warrants or tower dumps, citing the lack of individualized probable cause for the peripheral, innocent devices swept up in the geographic net.

And indeed, in my case, the police were not able to conduct this geofenced investigation (which would have instantly idenitied the person).

cataphract4• 3 months ago

I have no doubt this geo fencing data solves crimes and I don't even think it's as bad as e.g. the long surveillance in Carpenter.

The problem is that the police are going to start using like they do with much more precise DNA data, and more innocent people are going to caught in the net.

The bar to convict someone (or, more likely, to convince an innocent person to take a plea deal) is not as high ("beyond a reasonable doubt") as some people think. Get caught apparently contradicting hard data or even a witness and there goes your reasonable doubt.

josefritzishere• 3 months ago

Seems like a very clear fourth amendment violation; not that this is the ideal court to respect those precedents.

ryanisnan2• 3 months ago

Unrelated, but archive.ph links don't seem to work with nytimes anymore.

dmix• 3 months ago

https://periscope.corsfix.com/?https://www.nytimes.com/2026/...

ryanisnan2• 3 months ago

Thanks!

US Supreme Court reviews police use of cell location data

Related Stories