The case focuses on the constitutionality of law enforcement agencies using "geofence warrants" to determine who was in a particular location at a particular time. Coffee found to have startling ...

The US Supreme Court just issued a ruling that limits geofence searches by law enforcement agencies, which could have major ramifications for privacy rights across the country. For the uninitiated, ...

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Monday that geofence warrants count as a “search” under the Fourth Amendment, a decision that will likely impact how police departments around the country seek ...

Court-approved geofence warrants compel third-party companies — such as Alphabet's Google in the case before the justices — to search customer location data for mobile devices that were near the scene ...

The case involved “geofence” searches, which allow law enforcement to find suspects and witnesses by sweeping up location data from cellphones near crime scenes. By Ann E. Marimow and Adam Liptak ...

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to their cellphone location data, tossing out a ruling against a man convicted in a Virginia ...

The Supreme Court on Thursday restricted the use of a relatively new law enforcement technique that allows police to tap into giant tech-firm databases to see who was near the scene of a crime.

Type to search articles, cases, and authors. Press ↵ to view all results. Updated on June 29 at 3:50 p.m. The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that when law enforcement officials used a “geofence warrant ...

Washington – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out a judicial decision involving a Virginia man's challenge to a "geofence" warrant used by police to access cellphone location data near a crime ...

Law enforcement’s use of warrants sweeping smartphone location data requires privacy protections, court rules The US supreme court has ruled that law enforcement’s use of sprawling warrants that sweep ...

The Fourth Amendment protects a user’s “location history,” the Supreme Court ruled Monday. The same logic already applied to a cellphone’s tracking, and the high court found “no good reason exists to ...