The US Supreme Court made a new rule. Police must have a legal paper called a warrant to see where a person was with their phone.

美國最高法院制定了一項新規則。警方必須持有稱為「搜查令」的法律文件，才能查看個人的手機位置。

Police used a special tool to find Okello Chatrie. This tool shows all phones in one area. Police found Mr. Chatrie and put him in prison for twelve years.

警方使用了一項特殊工具來尋找 Okello Chatrie。該工具能顯示特定區域內的所有手機。警方隨後找到了 Chatrie 先生，並將其判處十二年監禁。

Six judges said this is wrong. They said phone location is like a private diary. People want their movements to be secret. Police cannot just take this information.

六位法官表示這樣做是錯誤的。他們認為手機定位就像私人日記一樣，人們希望自己的行蹤能保密。警方不能直接獲取這些資訊。

Three judges disagreed. They said people are in public places. They think the new rule is a mistake. Now, a lower court will look at Mr. Chatrie's case again.

三位法官則持有不同意見。他們認為人們處於公共場所，因此認為新規則是一個錯誤。現在，下級法院將重新審理 Chatrie 先生的案件。

Police now need a warrant to see phone location history. The court will decide if the police followed the rules in the Chatrie case.

警方現在需要搜查令才能查看手機定位紀錄。法院將決定警方在 Chatrie 案中是否遵守了規則。

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。

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the acquisition of cellphone location data by law enforcement agencies constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, thereby requiring a judicial warrant.

美國最高法院裁定，執法機關獲取手機位置數據屬於第四修正案下的「搜索」，因此需要司法搜索票據。

The adjudication in Chatrie v. United States centered on the legality of 'geofence warrants,' a mechanism whereby investigators compel technology providers to identify all users within a specified geographic radius during a precise temporal window. In the instant case, these methods were employed to identify Okello Chatrie following an armed robbery of a credit union in Virginia. The resulting data enabled the seizure of incriminating evidence, leading to Chatrie's conviction and a twelve-year sentence. The legal contention focused on whether the voluntary provision of location data to a third party, such as Google, nullifies an individual's expectation of privacy under the third-party doctrine.

Chatrie v. United States 案的審理核心在於「地理圍欄搜索票」（geofence warrants）的合法性。這是一種調查人員強制技術提供者識別在特定時間範圍內，處於指定地理半徑內所有用戶的機制。在本案中，此方法被用於識別 Okello Chatrie，因其在維吉尼亞州的一家信用合作社犯下武裝搶劫罪。隨後獲取的數據使得警方能查獲定罪證據，導致 Chatrie 被判處十二年監禁。法律爭議的焦點在於，根據「第三方原則」，個人將位置數據自願提供給第三方（如 Google）時，是否會使該個體對隱私的期待失效。

In a 6-3 decision, the majority, authored by Justice Elena Kagan, determined that location history functions as a comprehensive digital record of a user's movements, analogous to private journals or calendars. The Court reasoned that because the utilization of such services is often a prerequisite for device functionality, the act of opting into location tracking does not constitute a voluntary waiver of constitutional protections. Justice Sonia Sotomayor further noted that even brief monitoring can disclose sensitive associations, including religious, professional, or medical affiliations. Consequently, the Court held that the government must demonstrate probable cause to obtain a warrant for such data.

在一項 6 比 3 的裁決中，由大法官 Elena Kagan 撰寫的多數意見認定，位置紀錄是用戶行蹤的全面數位紀錄，類同於私人日記或行事曆。法院理由是，由於使用此類服務通常是設備運作的前提，因此選擇開啟位置追蹤並不構成對憲法保護的自願放棄。大法官 Sonia Sotomayor 進一步指出，即使是簡短的監控也能揭露敏感的關聯，包括宗教、職業或醫療相關的隸屬關係。因此，法院裁定政府必須證明有「合理理由」（probable cause）才能獲取此類數據的搜索票。

Conversely, the dissenting opinion, led by Justice Samuel Alito, characterized the ruling as an irresponsible departure from established jurisprudence. The dissent argued that individuals possess no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their movements in public spaces and cautioned that the majority's approach could destabilize Fourth Amendment law by necessitating warrants for even the most innocuous data requests. While the Court affirmed the general requirement for warrants, it refrained from declaring geofence warrants inherently unconstitutional, instead remanding the specific case to the lower courts to determine if the warrant used in Chatrie's apprehension met the requisite legal standards.

相反地，由大法官 Samuel Alito 領導的少數意見將此裁決定格為對既有法理的不負責任背離。反對意見認為，個人在公共空間的行蹤並不具有合理的隱私期待，並警告多數派的做法可能會使第四修正案的法律失穩，因為這將導致即使是最無害的數據請求也需要搜索票。雖然法院肯定了搜索票的一般要求，但並未宣布地理圍欄搜索票本身違憲，而是將本案發回下級法院，以判定逮捕 Chatrie 時所使用的搜索票是否符合法律標準。

The Supreme Court has mandated that law enforcement obtain warrants to access cellphone location history, though the specific validity of the warrant in the Chatrie case remains for lower court determination.

最高法院已強制要求執法機關必須取得搜索票才能獲取手機位置紀錄，但 Chatrie 案中該搜索票的具體有效性仍有待下級法院判定。