If you can’t view the embedded video, watch it here: https://youtu.be/VjdZg-Wr1qY
Virginia law enforcement used a technique called geofencing to examine Google’s location records and identify people who had been near a Midlothian bank when an armed robber fled with $195,000. Instead of targeting a particular suspect’s phone or a specific address, investigators drew a virtual perimeter around the crime scene and asked a court to compel Google to search its data for devices that were inside that electronic boundary at the time of the robbery.
Geofencing warrants require tech companies to sift through their users’ location histories and hand over information about every device that crossed the defined area during the relevant window. That process can reveal movements and associations of many people who have no connection to the crime.
Opponents argue this practice raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns. The amendment protects against unreasonable searches and generally requires a neutral magistrate to issue a warrant that describes the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Critics say geofencing amounts to a broad, non-specific search of private data rather than a narrowly targeted search for particular evidence tied to a suspect.
Supporters contend geofencing is a useful investigative tool that can quickly generate leads and help solve crimes, especially when other evidence is limited. The legal question now before the U.S. Supreme Court is whether geofencing constitutes a permissible investigative technique or an unconstitutional invasion of privacy — or some combination of both — and what limits, if any, the Constitution requires.
Stay current with developments by subscribing to NPR’s Politics newsletter: https://www.npr.org/newsletter/politics