Supreme Court Geofence Ruling Could Reshape Police Use of License-Plate Cameras
Summary
The Chatrie ruling requires warrants for geofence searches of phone location history. Legal experts say its privacy reasoning could also affect police use of ALPR data, while Flock Safety argues the technologies are different.
Key points
- The Supreme Court ruled that geofence searches of cell phone location history require a warrant.
- Legal experts say the ruling’s concern about retrospective, indiscriminate tracking could apply to ALPR searches.
- ALPR data, combined with other police databases, can help identify vehicle movements, travel patterns and sensitive visits.
- Flock Safety says its cameras capture point-in-time images in public and argues the ruling does not apply to its technology.
- The ruling also raises potential questions about reverse keyword searches, cell tower dumps and police purchases of commercial location data.
Article Details
- Event Type
- Supreme Court ruling on warrants for geofence searches of cell phone location history, with potential implications for automated license plate reader (ALPR) searches.
- Impact
- The ruling found that geofence searches of cell phone location history require a warrant. Legal scholars say its reasoning could affect warrantless police use of ALPR data, which can reveal vehicle movements and sensitive location patterns, but the article reports no ruling that directly changes ALPR use. Flock Safety argues that its technology is categorically different from Google location history.
People
Andrew FergusonA law professor at George Washington University who argued that ALPRs connect to broader systems of personally revealing information and that the ruling strengthens the Fourth Amendment case against warrantless ALPR data collection.Michael SoyferAn attorney at the Institute for Justice who said the ruling’s concerns about retrospective, indiscriminate tracking and database capabilities also apply to ALPR data.