Is the information you voluntarily agree to give to private companies still your property? In August of this year, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled on a case, United States v Smith. This ruling is incredibly detrimental to law enforcement and directly contradicts a ruling one year prior in the Fourth Circuit Court. This issue involves the interpretation of the United States Constitution and previous court rulings. This paper will explain the right to privacy and court rulings and offer a path to resolve this issue.
First, we shall explain every citizen's right to privacy in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment states, "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." ("Constitution of the United States," art. 1, sec. 4) Before the United States of America was established, we were colonies of Great Britain. In those days, a warrant granting a "general search" was legal. This means if law enforcement knew a weapon or evidence was in a drawer in a bedroom but didn't know which house, they could obtain a warrant and search everyone's home in the city. Even for people who were not suspected of a crime. Since the Fourth Amendment was created, if law enforcement wants to obtain a search warrant, law enforcement must reach the probable cause standard. The probable cause standard is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime has been, or will be, committed. Warrants must be specific, describing where the search will occur and what items or persons are being sought. This means that once the search warrant is granted, law enforcement can search a particular location and search for specific items. A valid warrant is required for most searches and seizures to be lawful, but do not forget that there are exceptions to the search warrant requirements. We shall now look at those exceptions.
The first exception is the exigent circumstance exception. This exception is only permissible when harm or death is possible. A simple example is a child goes missing from a park, and law enforcement is called. A witness tells the police a man in a striped shirt took the girl and got into a white car. The witness gives law enforcement a license plate for the vehicle and a description of the man. The police go to the registered address and see the car in the driveway. They knock on the door, and a man matching the description answers it. He quickly shuts it, and the police officers hear a child scream inside. They kick the door in and enter the property. Did they violate the man's rights? No. Per the exigent circumstance exception, they have reason to believe the child could be in imminent danger.
The second example is the third-party doctrine, which the United States Supreme Court established in 1976 in the case of United States v Miller. In this case, Mitch Miller was under investigation for alleged illegal distillation of alcohol and tax evasion relating to the illegal distillation. The government issued subpoenas to the banks where Miller held accounts, requesting his financial records without a warrant or Miller's knowledge. Miller argued that it violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States, holding that Miller had no legitimate expectation of privacy in his bank records held by third-party institutions. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment did not require the government to obtain a warrant to access these records. "The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities." ("United States V. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976)") The reasoning behind the court's decision is that Miller voluntarily conveyed information to the banks; he assumed the risk that these records might be shared with government authorities. The Fourth Amendment's protections do not extend to information voluntarily shared with third parties. United States v. Miller established the third-party doctrine. The third-party doctrine states individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily shared with third parties. It set a precedent allowing government agencies to access records held by banks, telephone companies, and internet service providers without a warrant. If you give your information to a company or any "third party" (except for attorneys and doctors), it does not meet the search warrant requirement and is not an invasion of privacy.
Another exception relates to abandoned property, particularly in the case of California v Greenwood. California v Greenwood began when police officers in California suspected Billy Greenwood of drug trafficking and asked the garbage collector to collect Greenwood's trash bags and turn them over to the police without a warrant. The officers found evidence of drug use, which they used to obtain a search warrant for Greenwood's home, ultimately leading to his arrest. Greenwood argued that the warrantless search of his trash violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The question was whether the Fourth Amendment protects garbage left outside a home in an area accessible to the public from warrantless searches by law enforcement.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the area immediately surrounding the home; this is called the house's curtilage. The Court held that individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage left for collection in an area accessible to the public. The Court determined that when someone places trash outside for collection, they abandon it, and any expectation of privacy in it is not objectively reasonable. By leaving the garbage accessible to the public, the person assumes the risk that it might be searched or accessed by others, such as children, animals, or scavengers. Because garbage left on the curb is generally exposed to the public and no longer under the homeowner's control, it does not receive Fourth Amendment protections. The Court cited previous cases that held that abandoned property does not carry privacy expectations, concluding that trash on the curb is legally considered abandoned property. The decision in California v. Greenwood established that the Fourth Amendment does not extend to garbage left for collection outside the immediate surroundings of a home.
"The reasonableness of a search for Fourth Amendment purposes does not depend upon privacy concepts embodied in the law of the particular State in which the search occurred; rather, it turns upon the understanding of society as a whole that certain areas deserve the most scrupulous protection from government invasion. There is no such understanding with respect to garbage left for collection at the side of a public street." ("California V. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988)")
These are the main exceptions to the search warrant requirement. Now that we have this foundation, we shall examine more current Fourth Amendment rulings relating to technology and the right to privacy.
We shall examine The first court ruling in June 2018, in Carpenter v. United States. This case addresses the government's cell-site location information (CSLI) collection without a warrant. CSLI: Cell phones constantly connect to radio antennas known as "cell sites" to function. Each connection creates a timestamped record, CSLI, showing the phone's location. Collection of CSLI in This Case: The FBI, investigating a series of robberies, obtained the phone numbers of suspects, including Timothy Carpenter's. Under the Stored Communications Act, prosecutors received court orders to collect CSLI from wireless carriers, gathering 12,898 location points over 127 days. This data indicated an average of 101 location points per day.
Whether the government's acquisition of Carpenter's CSLI without a warrant constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment, thereby requiring a warrant supported by probable cause. Carpenter argued that the government's collection of his CSLI without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights and infringed on his reasonable expectation of privacy. "By allowing Carpenter to object to the search of a third party's property, the Court threatens to revolutionize a second and independent line of Fourth Amendment doctrine." (""Carpenter v. United States." Supreme Court of the United States, 22 June 2018,")
The government maintained that Carpenter did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the CSLI data because he voluntarily shared his location information with his wireless carrier. The district court ruling denied Carpenter's motion to suppress the CSLI data. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling affirmed the conviction, holding that Carpenter had no reasonable expectation of privacy in CSLI since it was shared with a third party (the wireless carriers).
However, the Supreme Court ruled that the government's acquisition of Carpenter's cell-site records constituted a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. This implies that obtaining such records would generally require a warrant based on probable cause. The decision in Carpenter v. United States clarifies that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their CSLI data, and government access to such data typically requires a warrant.
Before we examine our next court ruling, we must understand the basic information within the court ruling regarding the company Google. It is no secret that Google tracks your searches, location, messages, calendar, etc. You agree to share your information when you accept the terms and conditions for using Google's services. This means you voluntarily gave Google access to your information, locations, search history, and more when you accepted the terms of service. The main reason Google tracks your data is for advertising and monetary purposes. They resell your information to companies and advertising businesses so they can advertise in a more personalized way to obtain more customers. This also means Google has access to more information than one can imagine. A tool Google uses is called a geofence. This geofence would select an area and search if people were in this location at a specific time. Now that we understand this let us look at United States v Chatrie. Do not forget you voluntarily gave this information to Google, a third party; it is no longer your information. To preserve customers' privacy, Google demands a search warrant for all geofence and location requests. This is their right and is arguably demanded by Carpenter v United States because it is location data from a cellular device.
United States v Chatrie examines geofence warrants, a controversial new technology that utilizes location data to identify suspects. In this case, Okello Chatrie was charged with armed robbery after police used Google's Sensorvault data, which stores detailed location histories of users who opt-in. Law enforcement obtained a geofence warrant to search for anyone near the bank where the crime occurred, leading to Chatrie's identification as a suspect. Chatrie's defense team, including Michael Price from the Fourth Amendment Center, challenged the constitutionality of the warrant, arguing it violated Chatrie's Fourth Amendment rights. Filings include motions to suppress the evidence obtained through the geofence warrant, arguing that this warrant type functions as overly broad and lacks the particularity required under the Fourth Amendment. It argued that geofence warrants violate the Fourth Amendment by acting as "general warrants"-too broad and lacking specific targets-by collecting data on all users within a geofence radius, even if they were not involved in the crime. The defense pushed for extensive discovery regarding how Google handles data, including subpoenas to Google for raw data, to argue that the search was intrusive and indiscriminate.
The prosecution countered this motion with the Good-Faith exception. The government argued that law enforcement acted in good faith, given the lack of clear legal precedent on geofence warrants. I say that the prosecution used the wrong argument. The good faith exception is a legal rule that allows evidence obtained illegally to be used in court if police officers reasonably believed they were acting within the law. Evidence can be admitted if an honest mistake was made without malicious intent. This was the wrong argument to use. They should have argued the third-party doctrine and that Chatrie had no right to privacy with the Google geofence because he voluntarily gave his information away.
"So unlike with CSLI, a user knowingly and voluntarily exposes his Location History data to Google. First, Location History is not " 'such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life' that activating it is indispensable to participation in modern society." ("United States v. Chatrie, 107 F.4th 319, 331 4th Cir. 2024")
Given the case law we mentioned, it would have been a stronger argument than using the good faith exception. In March 2022, the court ruled the warrant was unconstitutional due to Fourth Amendment violations but did not necessarily suppress the evidence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned this ruling in July 2024. The verdict determined that no violation of the Fourth Amendment occurred, and Chatrie did not have a right to privacy with the information he shared with Google. This ruling upholds the third-party doctrine.
Now that we fully understand the right to privacy, search warrant requirements, and court rulings, we shall examine our issue: United States v. Smith. This case began with an attack and robbery of a U.S. Postal Service route driver, having over $60,000 stolen from him. Key evidence in the case was obtained through a Google geofence warrant to pinpoint suspects' locations near the crime scene. The defendants sought to suppress the evidence collected through this geofence warrant, arguing that it violated their Fourth Amendment rights due to a lack of probable cause and particularity. They also argued that the government had not followed appropriate procedures to obtain further information from Google. However, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi denied the motion, finding that law enforcement acted in good faith.
Upon appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court reviewed the case and found that geofence warrants could generally be considered unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment as they resemble general warrants, which lack specificity. Despite this, the court upheld the lower court's decision, citing a good-faith exception because law enforcement acted reasonably, given the novelty of geofence technology and the absence of established legal guidelines. Again, I would not use the good faith exception because there is a clear argument for the third-party doctrine.
"To conclude, we hold that law enforcement in this case did conduct a search when it sought Location History data from Google. Given the intrusiveness and ubiquity of Location History data, Smith and McThunel correctly contend that they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their respective data. Additionally, per Carpenter, the third-party doctrine does not apply." (""United States V. Smith, No. 23-60321 (5th Cir. 2024)."")
Despite the ruling on the Google geofence, the convictions and sentences of the defendants were upheld. I argue this ruling is still problematic because it claims Google geofences "could be considered unconstitutional," and the Fifth Circuit Court is not allowing any more evidence with Google geofences. This conflicts with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling stating no expectation of privacy existed. It also has issues for potential other searches, such as DNA databases law enforcement uses where people voluntarily gave their DNA away. We must ask ourselves a question. Is the information I give away still mine? It is common knowledge you do not have a right to privacy when in a public place and can be recorded and photographed without your consent.
When you give away information such as DNA to ancestry.com or your location to Google, you voluntarily give that information to a third party, it does not belong to you anymore. This is common in civil law. When photographers post photographs they have taken on their website after they sold the rights to another party, those photographers have been sued and judged for copyright infringement on their pictures. This is the same principle in criminal law with the third-party doctrine. Due to two conflicting court rulings, we now have a problem.
How can this issue be genuinely resolved? In the judicial sense, this case must be submitted to the United States Supreme Court for review and a ruling. The United States Supreme Court appeals process is structured and very selective. Cases from state supreme courts can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but only if they involve a federal law or constitutional issue. Most cases reach the Supreme Court through a petition for a writ of certiorari (commonly called "cert"). This petition asks the Court to review the decision of a lower court. The petitioner must demonstrate that the case presents an important legal issue, such as conflicting rulings in lower courts or a significant constitutional question.
Justices and their clerks review the petitions. Most petitions are placed in a cert pool to streamline review. The justices meet in private conferences to discuss the petitions. A minimum of four justices must vote to grant certiorari, known as the "Rule of Four." If certiorari is granted, the Court agrees to hear the case, and it is added to the docket. Both parties submit written briefs; sometimes, amicus curiae briefs are filed by interested third parties. The Court holds oral arguments where lawyers for each side present their case and answer justices' questions. The justices deliberate in private to reach a decision. Opinions are drafted, reviewed, and finalized.
The Court will issue one of three opinions: a majority opinion (the court's decision), Concurring opinions (agreeing with the outcome but for different reasons), and Dissenting opinions (disagreeing with the majority). Once the decision is announced, it becomes binding law and serves as a precedent for lower courts.
The Supreme Court is not obligated to hear every case. It chooses cases with broad legal significance, resolves conflicting rulings among lower courts, or addresses pressing constitutional issues.
In conclusion, the Fourth Amendment protects the privacy rights of the public, with certain exceptions. Various court rulings have been made regarding abandoned property, giving information to third parties, and expectations of privacy in those cases. The court ruling of United States v Smith directly negatively affects law enforcement and contradicts various court rulings differently. It contradicts United States v Miller because the information was obtained through a third party. It contradicts United States v Chatrie, which speaks directly about Google geofences and their constitutionality. This is why I argue that United States v Chatrie and United States v Smith be presented to the United States Supreme Court for review and opinion.
References
The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription. National Archives, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, 4 May 2020, archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript.
"United States V. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976)." Justia Law, supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/425/435.
"California V. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988)." Justia Law, supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/486/35.
Carpenter, Timothy. "CARPENTER V. UNITED STATES." SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 22 June 2018, supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf.
"NACDL - United States V. Chatrie, No. 3:19-cr-130 (E.D. Va.)." NACDL - National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, nacdl.org/Content/United-States-v-Chatrie,-No-3-19-cr-130-(E-D-Va-).
"United States V. Smith, No. 23-60321 (5th Cir. 2024)." Justia Law, 9 Aug. 2024, law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/23-60321/23-60321-2024-08-09.html.
First, we shall explain every citizen's right to privacy in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment states, "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." ("Constitution of the United States," art. 1, sec. 4) Before the United States of America was established, we were colonies of Great Britain. In those days, a warrant granting a "general search" was legal. This means if law enforcement knew a weapon or evidence was in a drawer in a bedroom but didn't know which house, they could obtain a warrant and search everyone's home in the city. Even for people who were not suspected of a crime. Since the Fourth Amendment was created, if law enforcement wants to obtain a search warrant, law enforcement must reach the probable cause standard. The probable cause standard is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime has been, or will be, committed. Warrants must be specific, describing where the search will occur and what items or persons are being sought. This means that once the search warrant is granted, law enforcement can search a particular location and search for specific items. A valid warrant is required for most searches and seizures to be lawful, but do not forget that there are exceptions to the search warrant requirements. We shall now look at those exceptions.
The first exception is the exigent circumstance exception. This exception is only permissible when harm or death is possible. A simple example is a child goes missing from a park, and law enforcement is called. A witness tells the police a man in a striped shirt took the girl and got into a white car. The witness gives law enforcement a license plate for the vehicle and a description of the man. The police go to the registered address and see the car in the driveway. They knock on the door, and a man matching the description answers it. He quickly shuts it, and the police officers hear a child scream inside. They kick the door in and enter the property. Did they violate the man's rights? No. Per the exigent circumstance exception, they have reason to believe the child could be in imminent danger.
The second example is the third-party doctrine, which the United States Supreme Court established in 1976 in the case of United States v Miller. In this case, Mitch Miller was under investigation for alleged illegal distillation of alcohol and tax evasion relating to the illegal distillation. The government issued subpoenas to the banks where Miller held accounts, requesting his financial records without a warrant or Miller's knowledge. Miller argued that it violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States, holding that Miller had no legitimate expectation of privacy in his bank records held by third-party institutions. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment did not require the government to obtain a warrant to access these records. "The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities." ("United States V. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976)") The reasoning behind the court's decision is that Miller voluntarily conveyed information to the banks; he assumed the risk that these records might be shared with government authorities. The Fourth Amendment's protections do not extend to information voluntarily shared with third parties. United States v. Miller established the third-party doctrine. The third-party doctrine states individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily shared with third parties. It set a precedent allowing government agencies to access records held by banks, telephone companies, and internet service providers without a warrant. If you give your information to a company or any "third party" (except for attorneys and doctors), it does not meet the search warrant requirement and is not an invasion of privacy.
Another exception relates to abandoned property, particularly in the case of California v Greenwood. California v Greenwood began when police officers in California suspected Billy Greenwood of drug trafficking and asked the garbage collector to collect Greenwood's trash bags and turn them over to the police without a warrant. The officers found evidence of drug use, which they used to obtain a search warrant for Greenwood's home, ultimately leading to his arrest. Greenwood argued that the warrantless search of his trash violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The question was whether the Fourth Amendment protects garbage left outside a home in an area accessible to the public from warrantless searches by law enforcement.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the area immediately surrounding the home; this is called the house's curtilage. The Court held that individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage left for collection in an area accessible to the public. The Court determined that when someone places trash outside for collection, they abandon it, and any expectation of privacy in it is not objectively reasonable. By leaving the garbage accessible to the public, the person assumes the risk that it might be searched or accessed by others, such as children, animals, or scavengers. Because garbage left on the curb is generally exposed to the public and no longer under the homeowner's control, it does not receive Fourth Amendment protections. The Court cited previous cases that held that abandoned property does not carry privacy expectations, concluding that trash on the curb is legally considered abandoned property. The decision in California v. Greenwood established that the Fourth Amendment does not extend to garbage left for collection outside the immediate surroundings of a home.
"The reasonableness of a search for Fourth Amendment purposes does not depend upon privacy concepts embodied in the law of the particular State in which the search occurred; rather, it turns upon the understanding of society as a whole that certain areas deserve the most scrupulous protection from government invasion. There is no such understanding with respect to garbage left for collection at the side of a public street." ("California V. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988)")
These are the main exceptions to the search warrant requirement. Now that we have this foundation, we shall examine more current Fourth Amendment rulings relating to technology and the right to privacy.
We shall examine The first court ruling in June 2018, in Carpenter v. United States. This case addresses the government's cell-site location information (CSLI) collection without a warrant. CSLI: Cell phones constantly connect to radio antennas known as "cell sites" to function. Each connection creates a timestamped record, CSLI, showing the phone's location. Collection of CSLI in This Case: The FBI, investigating a series of robberies, obtained the phone numbers of suspects, including Timothy Carpenter's. Under the Stored Communications Act, prosecutors received court orders to collect CSLI from wireless carriers, gathering 12,898 location points over 127 days. This data indicated an average of 101 location points per day.
Whether the government's acquisition of Carpenter's CSLI without a warrant constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment, thereby requiring a warrant supported by probable cause. Carpenter argued that the government's collection of his CSLI without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights and infringed on his reasonable expectation of privacy. "By allowing Carpenter to object to the search of a third party's property, the Court threatens to revolutionize a second and independent line of Fourth Amendment doctrine." (""Carpenter v. United States." Supreme Court of the United States, 22 June 2018,")
The government maintained that Carpenter did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the CSLI data because he voluntarily shared his location information with his wireless carrier. The district court ruling denied Carpenter's motion to suppress the CSLI data. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling affirmed the conviction, holding that Carpenter had no reasonable expectation of privacy in CSLI since it was shared with a third party (the wireless carriers).
However, the Supreme Court ruled that the government's acquisition of Carpenter's cell-site records constituted a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. This implies that obtaining such records would generally require a warrant based on probable cause. The decision in Carpenter v. United States clarifies that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their CSLI data, and government access to such data typically requires a warrant.
Before we examine our next court ruling, we must understand the basic information within the court ruling regarding the company Google. It is no secret that Google tracks your searches, location, messages, calendar, etc. You agree to share your information when you accept the terms and conditions for using Google's services. This means you voluntarily gave Google access to your information, locations, search history, and more when you accepted the terms of service. The main reason Google tracks your data is for advertising and monetary purposes. They resell your information to companies and advertising businesses so they can advertise in a more personalized way to obtain more customers. This also means Google has access to more information than one can imagine. A tool Google uses is called a geofence. This geofence would select an area and search if people were in this location at a specific time. Now that we understand this let us look at United States v Chatrie. Do not forget you voluntarily gave this information to Google, a third party; it is no longer your information. To preserve customers' privacy, Google demands a search warrant for all geofence and location requests. This is their right and is arguably demanded by Carpenter v United States because it is location data from a cellular device.
United States v Chatrie examines geofence warrants, a controversial new technology that utilizes location data to identify suspects. In this case, Okello Chatrie was charged with armed robbery after police used Google's Sensorvault data, which stores detailed location histories of users who opt-in. Law enforcement obtained a geofence warrant to search for anyone near the bank where the crime occurred, leading to Chatrie's identification as a suspect. Chatrie's defense team, including Michael Price from the Fourth Amendment Center, challenged the constitutionality of the warrant, arguing it violated Chatrie's Fourth Amendment rights. Filings include motions to suppress the evidence obtained through the geofence warrant, arguing that this warrant type functions as overly broad and lacks the particularity required under the Fourth Amendment. It argued that geofence warrants violate the Fourth Amendment by acting as "general warrants"-too broad and lacking specific targets-by collecting data on all users within a geofence radius, even if they were not involved in the crime. The defense pushed for extensive discovery regarding how Google handles data, including subpoenas to Google for raw data, to argue that the search was intrusive and indiscriminate.
The prosecution countered this motion with the Good-Faith exception. The government argued that law enforcement acted in good faith, given the lack of clear legal precedent on geofence warrants. I say that the prosecution used the wrong argument. The good faith exception is a legal rule that allows evidence obtained illegally to be used in court if police officers reasonably believed they were acting within the law. Evidence can be admitted if an honest mistake was made without malicious intent. This was the wrong argument to use. They should have argued the third-party doctrine and that Chatrie had no right to privacy with the Google geofence because he voluntarily gave his information away.
"So unlike with CSLI, a user knowingly and voluntarily exposes his Location History data to Google. First, Location History is not " 'such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life' that activating it is indispensable to participation in modern society." ("United States v. Chatrie, 107 F.4th 319, 331 4th Cir. 2024")
Given the case law we mentioned, it would have been a stronger argument than using the good faith exception. In March 2022, the court ruled the warrant was unconstitutional due to Fourth Amendment violations but did not necessarily suppress the evidence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned this ruling in July 2024. The verdict determined that no violation of the Fourth Amendment occurred, and Chatrie did not have a right to privacy with the information he shared with Google. This ruling upholds the third-party doctrine.
Now that we fully understand the right to privacy, search warrant requirements, and court rulings, we shall examine our issue: United States v. Smith. This case began with an attack and robbery of a U.S. Postal Service route driver, having over $60,000 stolen from him. Key evidence in the case was obtained through a Google geofence warrant to pinpoint suspects' locations near the crime scene. The defendants sought to suppress the evidence collected through this geofence warrant, arguing that it violated their Fourth Amendment rights due to a lack of probable cause and particularity. They also argued that the government had not followed appropriate procedures to obtain further information from Google. However, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi denied the motion, finding that law enforcement acted in good faith.
Upon appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court reviewed the case and found that geofence warrants could generally be considered unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment as they resemble general warrants, which lack specificity. Despite this, the court upheld the lower court's decision, citing a good-faith exception because law enforcement acted reasonably, given the novelty of geofence technology and the absence of established legal guidelines. Again, I would not use the good faith exception because there is a clear argument for the third-party doctrine.
"To conclude, we hold that law enforcement in this case did conduct a search when it sought Location History data from Google. Given the intrusiveness and ubiquity of Location History data, Smith and McThunel correctly contend that they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their respective data. Additionally, per Carpenter, the third-party doctrine does not apply." (""United States V. Smith, No. 23-60321 (5th Cir. 2024)."")
Despite the ruling on the Google geofence, the convictions and sentences of the defendants were upheld. I argue this ruling is still problematic because it claims Google geofences "could be considered unconstitutional," and the Fifth Circuit Court is not allowing any more evidence with Google geofences. This conflicts with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling stating no expectation of privacy existed. It also has issues for potential other searches, such as DNA databases law enforcement uses where people voluntarily gave their DNA away. We must ask ourselves a question. Is the information I give away still mine? It is common knowledge you do not have a right to privacy when in a public place and can be recorded and photographed without your consent.
When you give away information such as DNA to ancestry.com or your location to Google, you voluntarily give that information to a third party, it does not belong to you anymore. This is common in civil law. When photographers post photographs they have taken on their website after they sold the rights to another party, those photographers have been sued and judged for copyright infringement on their pictures. This is the same principle in criminal law with the third-party doctrine. Due to two conflicting court rulings, we now have a problem.
How can this issue be genuinely resolved? In the judicial sense, this case must be submitted to the United States Supreme Court for review and a ruling. The United States Supreme Court appeals process is structured and very selective. Cases from state supreme courts can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but only if they involve a federal law or constitutional issue. Most cases reach the Supreme Court through a petition for a writ of certiorari (commonly called "cert"). This petition asks the Court to review the decision of a lower court. The petitioner must demonstrate that the case presents an important legal issue, such as conflicting rulings in lower courts or a significant constitutional question.
Justices and their clerks review the petitions. Most petitions are placed in a cert pool to streamline review. The justices meet in private conferences to discuss the petitions. A minimum of four justices must vote to grant certiorari, known as the "Rule of Four." If certiorari is granted, the Court agrees to hear the case, and it is added to the docket. Both parties submit written briefs; sometimes, amicus curiae briefs are filed by interested third parties. The Court holds oral arguments where lawyers for each side present their case and answer justices' questions. The justices deliberate in private to reach a decision. Opinions are drafted, reviewed, and finalized.
The Court will issue one of three opinions: a majority opinion (the court's decision), Concurring opinions (agreeing with the outcome but for different reasons), and Dissenting opinions (disagreeing with the majority). Once the decision is announced, it becomes binding law and serves as a precedent for lower courts.
The Supreme Court is not obligated to hear every case. It chooses cases with broad legal significance, resolves conflicting rulings among lower courts, or addresses pressing constitutional issues.
In conclusion, the Fourth Amendment protects the privacy rights of the public, with certain exceptions. Various court rulings have been made regarding abandoned property, giving information to third parties, and expectations of privacy in those cases. The court ruling of United States v Smith directly negatively affects law enforcement and contradicts various court rulings differently. It contradicts United States v Miller because the information was obtained through a third party. It contradicts United States v Chatrie, which speaks directly about Google geofences and their constitutionality. This is why I argue that United States v Chatrie and United States v Smith be presented to the United States Supreme Court for review and opinion.
References
The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription. National Archives, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, 4 May 2020, archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript.
"United States V. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976)." Justia Law, supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/425/435.
"California V. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988)." Justia Law, supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/486/35.
Carpenter, Timothy. "CARPENTER V. UNITED STATES." SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 22 June 2018, supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf.
"NACDL - United States V. Chatrie, No. 3:19-cr-130 (E.D. Va.)." NACDL - National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, nacdl.org/Content/United-States-v-Chatrie,-No-3-19-cr-130-(E-D-Va-).
"United States V. Smith, No. 23-60321 (5th Cir. 2024)." Justia Law, 9 Aug. 2024, law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/23-60321/23-60321-2024-08-09.html.