The US Supreme Court ruled that the president can fire leaders of independent agencies, overturning 90 years of precedent. Donald Trump celebrated the decision, while labor and consumer advocacy groups, along with legal experts, criticized it as a threat to democracy and government functioning.
The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that geofence searches by law enforcement violate the Fourth Amendment. Police must now obtain a traditional search warrant, requiring probable cause, to access cell-phone location data from tech companies.
The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that location history, including data from third-party providers like Google, is protected under the Fourth Amendment, requiring a warrant for government access.
The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that law enforcement must obtain a search warrant for geofence location data, citing a reasonable expectation of privacy in cell-phone location information.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in Chatrie v. United States, a case examining whether police geofence warrants violate the Fourth Amendment. The case stems from a 2019 Virginia bank robbery where investigators used Google Maps Location History data to identify suspect Okello Chatrie. Police requested data on anyone within 300 meters of the crime scene, ultimately narrowing to three de-anonymized accounts. Chatrie's attorneys argue the warrantless location data collection constituted an unreasonable search, while the government contends users voluntarily shared data with Google. The ruling could reshape digital privacy rights and affect how law enforcement accesses data from tech companies.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in Chatrie v. United States, a landmark case challenging the constitutionality of geofence warrants that allow police to compel tech companies like Google to turn over location data for all users within a specific area and time. The case centers on Okello Chatrie, convicted of a 2019 bank robbery, whose defense argues geofence warrants allow 'search first and develop suspicions later,' violating Fourth Amendment protections. The decision, expected later this year, could reshape digital privacy rights for millions of Americans.
