Harrisburg, Pennsylvania:
In a landmark ruling with major implications for digital privacy, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided that police can access individuals’ Google search histories without obtaining a warrant. The decision, issued Tuesday, applies within Pennsylvania but is expected to influence law enforcement practices across the United States.
The ruling came in a case involving John Edward Kurtz, a convicted rapist. While investigating the crime, police had reached a dead end and turned to Google as a last resort. Investigators requested a list of users who had searched for the victim’s home address in the week leading up to the rape and home invasion. Google identified a search linked to an IP address associated with Kurtz’s residence, conducted just hours before the crime.
In its opinion, the court stated that internet users do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when making online searches. The justices argued that it is widely known that websites, apps, and internet service providers collect and sometimes sell user data. The court also pointed to Google’s privacy policy, which explicitly informs users that their search data may be shared with third parties.
“Google expressly informed its users that one should not expect any privacy when using its services,” the court wrote.
The court further noted that internet users have options to avoid exposing their data, such as using alternative methods to search for information. According to the opinion, the digital data trail created by internet use is voluntary, unlike the location data generated simply by carrying a mobile phone.
Legal experts say the decision could have far-reaching consequences. Andrew Ferguson, a law professor at George Washington University and author of the forthcoming book Your Data Will Be Used Against You, warned that the ruling may encourage police nationwide to rely more heavily on warrantless searches of online activity.
“If a rather progressive state like Pennsylvania gives the green light to warrantless collection of your search queries, this is likely to open the door for similar practices across the country,” Ferguson said.
Ferguson also raised concerns about civil liberties, describing such practices as creating a “chilling environment.” He noted that people often ask search engines deeply personal questions they would not share even with close family members.
“The danger of a reverse keyword search is that it allows police to rummage through our digital questions and queries—and, by inference, our minds,” he said. “A list of your questions to Google is a direct link to your thinking, and traditionally we try to keep the government out of that space.”
While the ruling is limited to Pennsylvania, privacy advocates fear it marks a significant shift in how courts view digital privacy, potentially reshaping the balance between law enforcement powers and individual rights in the digital age.