Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a major Fourth Amendment ruling on geofence warrants.

Our Take

We haven't independently verified every detail of this ruling ourselves, but the framing from The Minutemen Report is worth your attention: if the Court really did say that pulling historical location data from a third party like Google counts as a Fourth Amendment search, that's a meaningful crack in the "third-party doctrine" that police and prosecutors have leaned on for years to argue you have no privacy interest in data you hand to a tech company.

Here's why that matters beyond geofence warrants. Flock Safety's ALPR network runs on the exact same legal logic — your car's location, captured camera by camera and stitched into a searchable history, sitting on a company's servers, allegedly fair game because a private vendor holds it instead of the government. If courts keep chipping away at that excuse for phone location data, the same reasoning should eventually reach plate-reader dragnets that track ordinary drivers with zero suspicion of wrongdoing.

The catch, per the video: this ruling didn't ban geofence warrants outright, it just said they have to clear probable cause and particularity — the same bar ALPR hot-list searches and bulk queries routinely dodge in practice. That's the fight. Check our camera map to see what's already deployed near you, and hit take action if you want to push your local council on retention limits and warrant requirements before the next ruling has to clean up the mess.