If you search for information on Google without additional privacy protections, you should not expect that information to remain private. A recent ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that internet users entering search queries on Google do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, allowing law enforcement to access Google search histories without a warrant during investigations.
This ruling followed a criminal investigation into a sexual assault. To identify a suspect, police requested information from Google about users who searched for the victim’s name and home address around the time of the crime. Google provided anonymized search data linked to specific devices and accounts. Investigators eventually connected the searches to Edward Kurtz, who was arrested and convicted.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling is based on the “third-party doctrine,” which holds that information voluntarily shared with a third party loses Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Justice Christine Donohue, writing for the plurality, stated that when users input queries into Google, they knowingly disclose that information to a private company. Consequently, the court concluded that those searches lack a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The court compared Google searches to phone numbers dialed or bank records shared with financial institutions, types of data that courts have historically permitted police to access with lower legal thresholds. The justices also distinguished between search queries and more sensitive digital records, such as precise location data. In Carpenter v. United States (2018), the US Supreme Court ruled that accessing long-term mobile phone location data requires a warrant, recognizing its revealing nature. In contrast, the Pennsylvania court deemed search terms less intrusive and not equivalent to private communications.
However, the decision did not achieve a clear majority. Dissenting justices expressed significant concerns regarding privacy in the digital age. They argued that the ruling was unnecessary, suggesting prosecutors had enough evidence to pursue the case without reliance on warrantless access to search data. The dissent also questioned whether the third-party doctrine should be so broadly applied, particularly since internet searches can reveal intimate details about a person’s health, beliefs, fears, and intentions.
This case has increased scrutiny on Google’s role as a gatekeeper of user data. Although Google generally requires a legal process before releasing information, it complied with a court order in this instance rather than demanding a full warrant. Critics argue this emphasizes the need for stronger protections, such as limits on data retention and clearer standards for resisting broad law enforcement requests.
—
