Bank robbery is a bad life choice, but it takes real genius to do the job while carrying a smartphone linked to a personal email address. Okello Chatrie went to a Virginia credit union with a gun. He left with $195,000. Police caught him after using a "geofence" warrant to obtain device data from Google, since Mr. Chatrie had opted to save his "location history."

抢劫银行绝非明智之选，而携带与个人电子邮箱关联的智能手机作案，更是需要“真才实学”。 奥凯洛·查特里持枪闯入弗吉尼亚州一家信用社。 劫走19.5万美元。 警方通过“地理围栏”搜查令从谷歌获取设备数据，最终将其抓获。 原因是查特里启用了谷歌的“位置记录”功能。

On Monday his lawyer will tell the Supreme Court this was unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures." It also says warrants need probable cause and must be particular about the place to be searched. Applying old principles to new technologies can be tricky, but Chatrie v. U.S. shouldn't be.

周一，其律师将向最高法院辩称，这一做法违反了宪法。 美国宪法第四修正案禁止“不合理的搜查和扣押”，还规定搜查令的签发需基于合理依据，且必须明确搜查地点。 将旧原则应用于新技术固然棘手，但查特里诉美国政府一案不应如此。

The data that led police to Mr. Chatrie came from an optional Google feature he enabled, recording his location every few minutes. At the time, this information was stored on Google's servers, accessible to the company. The robber was on surveillance tape using a cellphone, so police sent Google a warrant for anonymous data on any devices within 150 meters of the crime, 30 minutes before and after.

警方锁定查特里的数据源于谷歌的一项可选功能，该功能每隔几分钟记录一次他的位置。 当时，这些信息存储在谷歌服务器上，谷歌公司可访问。 监控录像显示劫匪使用了手机，于是警方向谷歌发出搜查令，要求获取犯罪现场方圆150米内、案发前后30分钟内所有设备的匿名数据。

That returned 19 accounts. For nine of them, Detective Joshua Hylton obtained an additional hour of unbounded location data. Then he asked Google to unmask three devices. One was Mr. Chatrie's, registered with an email address that included his name. Police discovered he had recently bought a pistol. Searching his home, they found nearly $100,000, including bills wrapped in bands signed by the victim bank teller. Mr. Chatrie confessed.

警方收到了19个账户的信息。 对于其中9个账户，侦探约书亚·海尔顿又获取了额外一小时的无范围限制位置数据。 随后，他要求谷歌对其中三个设备进行身份识别。 其中一个设备属于查特里，其注册邮箱包含他的姓名。 警方发现他最近购买了一把手枪。 搜查其住所时，警方发现了近10万美元，其中一些钞票用印有受害银行柜员签名的带子捆着。 查特里随后供认不讳。

Solid work, detective. Yet the convict argues this was an illegal search. "The Fourth Amendment was born of the Founders' revulsion for general warrants and writs of assistance—instruments that allowed the government to search first and develop suspicions later," Mr. Chatrie says in his brief. "A geofence warrant operates on precisely that principle."

这位侦探干得漂亮。 然而，这位罪犯却辩称这是非法搜查。 查特里在简报中称：“第四修正案源于开国元勋对一般搜查令和协助搜查令的厌恶——这些工具允许政府先搜查，再形成怀疑。” “地理围栏搜查令正是基于这一原则。”

He points to the Court's 2018 decision in Carpenter v. U.S. in favor of another armed robber, whom police caught using 127 days of location data from cell towers. At the time, precedents suggested such information was a business record of the phone carrier, not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Citing the "unique nature of cell phone location records," a 5-4 majority found "a legitimate expectation of privacy."

他援引了最高法院2018年对卡彭特诉美国政府案的裁决。该案中，另一名武装劫匪因警方使用手机基站127天的位置数据而被抓获。 当时，判例显示此类信息属于电话运营商的业务记录，不受第四修正案保护。 然而，最高法院以5比4的多数意见，基于“手机位置记录的独特性质”，认定“人们对此有合理的隐私期待”。

Yet differences abound. Carpenter stands for the idea that police need to get a warrant. Mr. Chatrie's pursuers did. The 2018 case involved months of cell data that carriers keep whether customers like it or not. Mr. Chatrie chose to save a location diary in his account, and police saw two hours. For the record, Google says it has switched to storing this info on each user's device, and it "can no longer respond" to such geofence warrants.

但两案存在诸多差异。 卡彭特案强调警方需获取搜查令。 而查特里案中的警方已照做。 2018年的案件涉及运营商长期保存的、无论客户是否愿意都会记录的数月手机数据。 而查特里是自己选择在账户中保存位置日记，警方仅查看了两小时的数据。 值得一提的是，谷歌表示现已将此类信息存储在每个用户的设备上，“不再响应”此类地理围栏搜查令。

The implications are nonetheless sweeping if the Justices accept Mr. Chatrie's legal reading. "The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant to identify a particular account," he says, "supported by probable cause that incriminating evidence exists in that account."

然而，若法官接受查特里的法律解读，影响将十分深远。 查特里称：“第四修正案要求搜查令必须针对特定账户，且需有合理依据证明该账户中存在犯罪证据。”

Mr. Chatrie and his allies on the legal left want the Court to say the Fourth Amendment effectively bars all geofence warrants. No more asking a phone company which devices pinged a tower by the murder. Would detectives be limited to inquiring about specific customers?

查特里及其法律左翼盟友希望最高法院裁定，第四修正案实际上禁止所有地理围栏搜查令。 这意味着警方不能再询问电话公司，哪些设备在谋杀案现场附近的基站留下了信号。 那么，侦探是否只能询问特定客户的信息？

It's difficult to see this as the right constitutional balance between privacy and public safety. Police can dust a crime scene for fingerprints and get surveillance footage or nearby tollbooth records without identifying the suspect in advance.

很难说这是宪法在隐私与公共安全之间达成的正确平衡。 警方可以在犯罪现场提取指纹、获取监控录像或附近收费站记录，而无需事先确定嫌疑人身份。

In his fine concurring opinion in Chatrie for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the warrant, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson put it well: "As we contemplate the future, Fourth Amendment interpretation leads to twin risks. One is the risk that privacy will succumb to the evermore invasive technological capabilities at the hands of an evermore intrusive state. The other risk, which is just as real, is that of privileging those who break the law over those who would enforce it."

第四巡回上诉法院在维持搜查令合法性的判决中，法官J·哈维·威尔金森在其出色的协同意见书中指出：“展望未来，对第四修正案的解释面临双重风险。 一是隐私可能屈服于国家日益强大的技术能力和日益加剧的侵入性。 另一风险同样真实，即法律可能偏袒违法者，而非执法者。”

The bottom line? Geofence warrants are a useful tool that can be limited in space and time and don't necessarily violate the Fourth Amendment. Extending Carpenter in this way would let criminals exploit technology while denying the same to law enforcement.

归根结底。 地理围栏搜查令是有用的工具，可在空间和时间上加以限制，且不一定违反第四修正案。 以这种方式扩展卡彭特案的裁决，将让罪犯利用技术，而剥夺执法部门同样的权利。

本文来自公众微信号：英语阅读EnglishDaily