The United States Supreme Court has decided that when law enforcement agencies collect cellphone location data, it counts as a search under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, police must now obtain a judicial warrant to access this information.

美國最高法院已裁定，當執法機關收集手機位置數據時，根據第四修正案，此行為視為搜查。因此，警方現在必須取得司法搜查令才能獲取此類資訊。

The case of Chatrie v. United States focused on the legality of 'geofence warrants.' This is a method where investigators force tech companies to identify every user who was within a specific area during a certain time. In this case, these tools were used to find Okello Chatrie after an armed robbery of a credit union in Virginia. This data led to evidence that resulted in Chatrie's conviction and a twelve-year prison sentence. The main legal argument was whether people lose their right to privacy when they share their location data with a company like Google.

Chatrie 訴美國案的焦點在於「地理圍欄搜查令」（geofence warrants）的合法性。這是一種由調查人員強制科技公司識別在特定時間內位於特定區域內所有用戶的方法。在本案中，這些工具被用於尋找 Okello Chatrie，因為他對維吉尼亞州的一家信用合作社進行了持械搶劫。這些數據提供了證據，導致 Chatrie 被定罪並判處十二年監禁。主要的法律爭論在於，當人們將位置數據分享給 Google 等公司時，是否失去了隱私權。

In a 6-3 decision, the majority of the Court, led by Justice Elena Kagan, argued that location history is like a digital diary of a person's movements. The Court emphasized that because most people need these services for their phones to work, using them does not mean they are giving up their constitutional rights. Furthermore, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that even short periods of monitoring can reveal private details about a person's religion, job, or health. Consequently, the Court ruled that the government must show a strong reason, known as probable cause, to get a warrant for this data.

在一項 6 比 3 的裁決中，由大法官 Elena Kagan 領導的法院多數派認為，位置紀錄就像是一個人行蹤的數位日記。法院強調，由於大多數人需要這些服務才能使手機正常運作，使用這些服務並不意味著他們放棄了憲法權利。此外，大法官 Sonia Sotomayor 指出，即使是短時間的監控也能揭露關於一個人宗教、職業或健康的私密細節。因此，法院裁定政府必須證明有強而有力的理由（即「相當理由」，probable cause）才能獲取此類數據的搜查令。

On the other hand, Justice Samuel Alito disagreed with the ruling. He asserted that people should not expect privacy when they are moving in public spaces. He warned that this decision could create problems for the law by requiring warrants for even simple data requests. Although the Court said warrants are generally necessary, it did not say that geofence warrants are always illegal. Instead, it sent the case back to lower courts to decide if the specific warrant used to catch Chatrie was legal.

另一方面，大法官 Samuel Alito 不同意該裁決。他主張人們在公共空間活動時不應期待有隱私。他警告說，如果即使是簡單的數據請求也需要搜查令，這項決定可能會給法律執行帶來問題。雖然法院表示搜查令通常是必要的，但並未認定地理圍欄搜查令始終非法。相反，法院將案件發回下級法院，以決定用於逮捕 Chatrie 的特定搜查令是否合法。

The Supreme Court has now required law enforcement to get warrants before accessing cellphone location history, although lower courts must still decide if the warrant in the Chatrie case was valid.

最高法院現在要求執法部門在獲取手機位置紀錄前必須持有搜查令，儘管下級法院仍需決定 Chatrie 案件中的搜查令是否有效。