Fourth Amendment

A First Circuit panel upheld the conviction of Eric Robert Johnson for possession of child pornography, ruling that the federal investigation using Freenet Roundup did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Johnson argued the government conducted broad surveillance, but the court found the probe was akin to ordinary Freenet user activity. Investigators later recovered over 5,000 child pornography files and related items during a physical search of Johnson's residence.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Chatrie v. United States that 'geofence warrants' requiring tech companies to identify devices in a specific area constitute a constitutional search under the Fourth Amendment. The decision raises concerns about privacy in New York as it could impact surveillance technologies like license plate data and facial recognition, with experts warning about potential 'tireless and absolute surveillance' through expanded data access by law enforcement.

Minnesota experienced widespread arrests and deportations under ICE's Operation Metro Surge, with 5,000 people detained and $700 million in lost revenue. The operations, criticized for violating constitutional amendments and international human rights laws, targeted cities with large immigrant populations and resulted in nearly 200,000 arrests nationwide by early 2026.

The Supreme Court ruled that appeal waivers in plea bargains are unenforceable if they cause a miscarriage of justice and determined that geofence warrants analyzing cellphone location data qualify as a Fourth Amendment 'search'. Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed with both outcomes but emphasized broader concerns about coercive plea bargaining and problematic Fourth Amendment precedents.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that police must obtain warrants to access stored cellphone location data from companies like Google under the Fourth Amendment. In Chatrie v. United States, the Court found that individuals retain privacy rights in their location history, even when stored by third-party companies, and sent the case back to a lower court to assess the warrant's compliance with the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that police must obtain a warrant to access stored cellphone location data from companies like Google under the Fourth Amendment. The decision in Chatrie v. United States addressed geofence warrants, which require companies to provide location history for devices in a specific area during a time frame. The court sent the case back to a lower court to determine if the warrant used in the case met Fourth Amendment standards.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that police must obtain a warrant under the Fourth Amendment to access stored cellphone location data from companies like Google. The decision in Chatrie v. United States addressed geofence warrants used in a 2019 credit union robbery investigation, with the court stating individuals retain privacy rights in location data even when stored by third-party companies. The case was remanded to determine if the specific warrant met constitutional standards.

The US Supreme Court granted Donald Trump and future presidents the power to fire leaders of independent agencies, overturning a 90-year precedent. The court also ruled against Trump's administration on mail-in ballots, allowing them to be counted after election day, and mandated privacy protections for smartphone location data. Additionally, the court affirmed a jury's verdict against Trump in a case involving E. Jean Carroll.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that law enforcement requires warrants to access cellphone location history data under the Fourth Amendment. The decision centered on a 2019 Virginia credit union robbery case, where police obtained location data from a third-party tech company. The ruling leaves unresolved when such searches are deemed reasonable, with civil liberties advocates and states debating the implications of geofence warrants.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that police need warrants to obtain cellphone location data from third-party tech companies, citing Fourth Amendment protections. The decision, involving a 2019 Virginia credit union robbery case, left unresolved when such searches are considered reasonable under the Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement requires warrants to access cellphone location history data under the Fourth Amendment, citing privacy rights. The 6-3 decision centered on a Virginia bank robbery case, with Justice Elena Kagan writing the majority opinion. The ruling left unresolved questions about the reasonableness of geofence warrants, which allow police to track phones in specific geographic areas.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police must obtain a warrant to access geofence data from individual cellphones, affirming that cellphone location histories are protected under the Fourth Amendment. This decision is seen as a significant win for privacy advocates.

The Supreme Court ruled that police cannot freely access cellphone location history, stating constitutional privacy protections apply to such data. The decision involved Okello Chatrie, a bank robber whose identity was uncovered via a geofence warrant, with Justice Elena Kagan emphasizing that users retain privacy expectations even when sharing location data with Google. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, arguing Chatrie had no privacy claim for information voluntarily given to Google.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Virginia detectives violated the Fourth Amendment by using a geofence warrant to collect cellphone location data from Google to solve a 2019 bank robbery. The majority held that accessing Google's location database constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, citing prior precedent in Carpenter v. United States. The case involved Okello Chatrie, whose data was swept up in the search, and highlighted concerns about government access to sensitive location information.

The Supreme Court ruled that constitutional privacy protections extend to cellphone users' location history, citing a case where a geofence warrant linked a bank robber to a crime. The 6-3 decision, led by Justice Elena Kagan, emphasized that opting into Google’s location history does not relinquish privacy rights, while Justice Samuel Alito dissented, arguing the defendant voluntarily shared data with Google. The case involves Okello Chatrie, who was identified through location data after a 2019 bank robbery in Virginia.

The Supreme Court ruled that constitutional privacy protections apply to cellphone location data, citing a case where a geofence warrant led to a bank robber's identification. The 6-3 decision, with Justice Kagan's majority opinion and Justice Alito's dissent, addresses privacy expectations in digital age technologies, sending the case back for further proceedings.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that constitutional privacy protections apply to cellphone location data, using the case of bank robber Okello Chatrie, whose location was tracked via a geofence warrant. Justice Elena Kagan emphasized users retain privacy expectations even when sharing location data with services like Google, while Justice Samuel Alito dissented, arguing no privacy expectation exists for voluntarily shared data.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police need warrants to access cellphone location history data under the Fourth Amendment. The 6-3 decision centered on a 2019 Virginia credit union robbery case, with Justice Elena Kagan writing that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cellphone location records. The ruling leaves unresolved questions about when such searches are considered reasonable.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that collecting phone location data from a geographic area via geofence warrants constitutes a Fourth Amendment search, marking a significant decision for tech privacy. The ruling in Chatrie v. The United States aligns with 2018's Carpenter decision, emphasizing privacy protections for cell-site location data even when shared with third-party tech companies like Google.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that law enforcement must obtain warrants to access cellphone location data from third-party companies under the Fourth Amendment. The decision centered on a 2019 Virginia credit union robbery case, where police used geofence warrants to identify suspects, but the Court left unresolved when such searches are considered reasonable.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police need warrants to obtain cellphone location data under the Fourth Amendment, as demonstrated in a Virginia case involving a credit union robbery. The 6-3 decision acknowledged privacy rights but left unresolved when such searches are considered reasonable.

The Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement's use of a geofence warrant to obtain location data from Google for a 2019 bank robbery case constituted a 'search' under the Fourth Amendment. The case was remanded to the lower court to assess whether the search was 'reasonable.'

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their cellphone location data, vacating a lower court's ruling against Okello Chatrie in a Virginia bank robbery case. The decision deemed law enforcement's use of a geofence warrant to identify Chatrie a search under the Fourth Amendment.

The US Supreme Court ruled that geofence warrants requiring smartphone location data must include constitutional privacy protections under the Fourth Amendment. Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion, supporting critics who argue such warrants constitute an unconstitutional dragnet.

A Suffolk man was charged with damaging over a dozen Flock safety cameras. He told an investigator the cameras were unconstitutional and violated Fourth Amendment rights, according to a detective's testimony during a preliminary hearing.

The District of Columbia has settled a lawsuit with Sam O’Hara, who claims he was illegally detained by police while protesting an Ohio National Guard patrol by playing Darth Vader’s theme song. The settlement resolves his claims against DC and four officers but not against an Ohio National Guard member, Sgt. Devon Beck. O’Hara, represented by the ACLU, alleges the detention violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights.

The District of Columbia reached an undisclosed settlement with Sam O'Hara, who was detained for playing Darth Vader's theme song during a protest against federal troop deployments. O'Hara, represented by the ACLU, will drop his lawsuit against the district and police officers after receiving the settlement, though claims against an Ohio National Guard member remain unresolved.

The ATF canceled a contract for the surveillance tool Webloc after lawmakers and others raised concerns about its legality in criminal investigations. The tool, which uses commercial location data, faced criticism for bypassing warrant requirements, and the ATF stated it no longer meets their needs.

The Supreme Court refused to review a case involving the role of race in a police stop that led to the recovery of a stolen gun. A lower court found the stop unlawful, suppressed the evidence, and overturned the defendant's convictions. The Trump administration argued the ruling created race-specific standards for police conduct, but the Supreme Court denied the petition, with two justices dissenting.

A California tribe can proceed with its lawsuit against Mendocino County over cannabis raids, as a federal judge rejected the county's motion to dismiss the amended claims. The tribe argues the raids violated federal law by enforcing local regulations on tribal lands, and the judge found the new claims distinct from previously dismissed ones due to differences in legal and factual analysis.

Colorado firearms dealers sued the state in federal court, arguing a law requiring warrantless transaction record inspections by law enforcement violates the Fourth Amendment. The lawsuit, led by the Centennial Gun Club, challenges the Requirements for Firearms Dealers Act, which mandates dealers retain transaction records and face misdemeanor charges for refusing inspections.

A Fort Myers man was falsely arrested by Jacksonville Beach law enforcement after an AI facial recognition program incorrectly identified him as a suspect in a 2023 child luring case. The ACLU of Florida is suing on his behalf, alleging the arrest violated his Fourth Amendment rights and that overreliance on the technology caused lasting harm.

The Supreme Court is considering whether race can influence the Fourth Amendment's 'free to leave' test for police seizures in United States v. Carter. Donte Carter was convicted after officers found a stolen gun during a police encounter, but the District of Columbia Court of Appeals vacated his convictions, citing racial perceptions affecting the seizure determination. The case involves challenges to judicially attributed assumptions about racial distrust of law enforcement.

President Donald Trump signed a 45-day extension for Section 702 of FISA after the Senate rejected a House-passed three-year renewal. The Senate approved the short-term extension by unanimous consent, while the House's version included a controversial CBDC ban that led to its Senate rejection. The 45-day extension will force Congress to restart the FISA renewal process.

President Donald Trump signed a 45-day extension for Section 702 of FISA after the Senate rejected the House's three-year renewal, which included a controversial ban on central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). The Senate approved the short-term extension by unanimous consent, with opposition from Democrats and over 20 Republicans despite the CBDC provision.

The U.S. House passed a bipartisan renewal of Section 702 of FISA for the remainder of Trump's term, with 235-191 vote, but faced GOP opposition over privacy concerns. The Senate now faces pressure to act before the April 30 deadline, as House conservatives opposed the measure due to lack of warrant requirements for surveillance. A CBDC ban added to the bill as a compromise has drawn Senate Democratic resistance.

The Supreme Court questioned the constitutionality of geofence warrants during oral arguments in Chatrie v. The United States, a case involving location data obtained from Google in a 2019 bank robbery conviction. Justices from both conservative and liberal factions raised concerns about privacy, bulk data access, and the Fourth Amendment implications of such surveillance.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on geofence warrants, which require companies to disclose data from devices in specific locations, raising Fourth Amendment concerns. The case could shape how law enforcement conducts digital age investigations.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of 'geofence warrants,' which require tech companies to provide data from devices in a specific location and time. The case could redefine how law enforcement uses digital tools under the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches.

The Supreme Court is set to rule on the legality of geofence warrants, which allow law enforcement to obtain bulk digital data from device users in a specific time and location. The case, Chatrie v. United States, centers on whether these warrants violate the Fourth Amendment, with privacy advocates and civil liberties groups supporting the petitioner against the government's argument.