Georgia Supreme Court Rules Police Must Get Warrant to Access Personal Data Cars Store
First State Supreme Court to Affirm That The Fourth Amendment Applies to Personal Data Cars Collect
ATLANTA — The Georgia Supreme Court today that police must obtain a warrant in order to download data stored in a car’s computer systems during an investigation after a car crash. This is the first state supreme court to recognize the danger of warrantless access to the unprecedented types and quantities of personal data collected by modern cars. The ruling came in Mobley v. State, a case challenging the police’s warrantless search and seizure of data collected in a car’s Event Data Recorder, also known as a vehicle’s “black box.”
The American Civil Liberties Union, along with the ACLU of Georgia and digital privacy expert Riana Pfefferkorn, appeared as a friend-of-the-court in the case to argue for warrant protections for the sensitive data cars are increasingly collecting on drivers and their passengers.
“Police should not be able to conduct warrantless searches of computers, even if that computer happens to be on wheels,” said Nathan Freed Wessler, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, who on behalf of amici before the Georgia Supreme Court. “This ruling brings the law decades forward to help ensure that the troves of personal information cars now collect on us are protected from warrantless searches. Other states should follow Georgia’s lead to protect our privacy in the digital age.”
The personal data stored in vehicle “black boxes” includes granular information about the function and operation of a car. Black boxes are also connected with other parts of vehicles’ computer systems, which can reveal cellphone contacts, music preferences, detailed location history, and other sensitive data. To justify warrantless access to this information, the state had cited U.S. Supreme Court cases dating back to the early 20th century that hold that police do not need a warrant to search a car for physical items.
The ACLU responded that the U.S. Supreme Court recently made clear in and Carpenter v. United States that older rules permitting warrantless searches for physical items cannot be automatically extended to searches of digital data. Courts must assess people’s privacy interest in this data, and ensure that the warrant requirement is robustly enforced.
The ruling is here: .
An ACLU blog post on the case is here: /blog/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/our-cars-are-now-roving-computers-fourth-amendment.
The amicus brief filed by the ACLU, ACLU of Georgia, and Riana Pfefferkorn, who is affiliated with Stanford’s Center for Internet and Society, is here: .
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
ACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNAACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNA
PHOENIX — In a 7-0 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to extract and analyze people’s DNA, saying that a person’s limited consent to a search of biological material for a specific purpose—in this case, a blood alcohol test for a DUI arrest—does not overcome that requirement. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State v. Mitcham, arguing the government cannot genetically test biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. In the decision, the court wrote that “in reaching this conclusion, we emphatically reject the State’s position that it was free to analyze Mitcham’s blood in any way it pleased simply because the State lawfully possessed the blood vials.” “Government analysis of our DNA can expose detailed information about our identity, appearance, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. We don’t consent to sharing all of that information each time we involuntarily shed our DNA or consent to a blood draw. The government’s argument in this case was a privacy nightmare,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We are greatly heartened by the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.” In 2015, during a DUI arrest, the defendant in this case consented to the government collecting a sample of his blood solely to test it for blood-alcohol content, and was advised that the sample would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held on to this sample for three years, at which point it used it for a completely different purpose—to extract and analyze his DNA, without a warrant or consent—while investigating another crime. Had the court accepted the government’s rationale here, all of us who consent to a biological sample collection, at any point in time, for any purpose, to any government entity, could have been subject to a warrantless DNA search after the fact. “Our DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected,” said Jared Keenan, legal director of ACLU of Arizona. “The Court’s decision is vital to protecting the strong constitutional rights that keep all Arizonans’ information safe from warrantless searches and unconstitutional intrusion.” -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
Face Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and BeyondFace Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and Beyond
You shouldn't participate in face recognition ticketing schemes. -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
AI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, BiasAI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, Bias
AI-generated police reports threaten to exacerbate existing problems in law enforcement, and to create new ones.