The case involving a Virginia bank robbery is the latest example of the justices wrestling with how to apply constitutional protections to new technology.
This ruling confirms that there is no other legal path to obtain that data which isn’t a warrant.
The supreme court ruling doesn’t go this far.
The ruling says that a search occurred when LEOs obtained the geofenced location data from a service provider. The case was sent back down to the circuit court to determine whether or not a warrant was required.
There are various exceptions that allow the government to conduct warrantless searches under the 4th amendment. For example:
the “frisk” in a Terry stop to search for weapons.
search with consent
search incident to arrest
hot pursuit and exigent circumstance allow police to follow suspects into a place, but not usually to then go looking for stuff.
searches within the (generous) border zone for border enforcement
searches at airport security and similar contexts
public roadway DUI checkpoints and other road safety checkpoints that stop all drivers.
It’s not obvious that any of those apply to this case, but maybe they do. The circuit court will decide.
The supreme court ruling doesn’t go this far.
The ruling says that a search occurred when LEOs obtained the geofenced location data from a service provider. The case was sent back down to the circuit court to determine whether or not a warrant was required.
There are various exceptions that allow the government to conduct warrantless searches under the 4th amendment. For example:
It’s not obvious that any of those apply to this case, but maybe they do. The circuit court will decide.
That’s fair, I was adding a bit of my own judgment into that statement.
I believe that the circuit court will find that this is a typical search, requiring a warrant, but the Supreme Court didn’t explicitly say that.