Oral arguments unfolded at the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday in Chatrie v. United States, which will decide whether police demands for all Google data from anyone near a crime scene violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search.
The case surrounds a 2019 robbery of a federal credit union in Virginia. Law enforcement investigating the robbery served a warrant on Google, asking for information on any devices near the bank at the time. The district court found there was no probable cause but allowed the warrant anyway, citing the "good-faith exception."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. So, the Supreme Court will decide whether Americans can control their privacy and data held by third-party tech companies, and what the government must do if it intends to subpoena the digital records.
During the arguments, the justices sparked online debate about whether they fully comprehend the uses of technology they were debating.
In one discussion, Chief Justice John Roberts didn't understand why they were even meeting to discuss the issue, since users can ask their phones to turn off location services.
Roberts asked, "What's the issue?" Saying that people could simply turn it off.
Arguing for Chatrie, lawyer Adam Unikowsky explained that Americans shouldn't have to turn off "location services" just to avoid being surveilled by the government.
Location services are necessary for features like GPS directions in Google Maps or "find my phone" technology. Parents use the location services to keep an eye on where their kids are. Friends can share it with other friends when meeting up or use it for safety if they're going out with someone they met online.
Roberts argued that the government only gets access if the user decides to make it public.
Constitutional Law Professor Anthony Michael Kreis commented, "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 joked, "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."
The justices generally make "originalist" arguments, but such arguments come from a time when technology available today didn't exist.
Another remarked, "If you don't want the electorate to track you, establish a docket to announce decisions without explanation."
This is a slight on the justices, specifically Roberts, who have tried to hide debate from the public using the "shadow docket," where there are no public oral arguments in the court.
Tech Crunch security editor Zack Whittaker confessed it took him just five minutes of listening to the oral arguments before he was "annoyed by Roberts' flawed logic."
A follower joked that Roberts was basically saying, "Just opt out like our Founders intended..."
