Are Google searches private in Pennsylvania? PA Supreme Court’s Ruling in Commonwealth v. Kurtz

Key Takeaway: In Pennsylvania, people using standard search engines, such as Google or ChatGPT, without additional privacy measures, should assume their internet searches are not private and could be obtained by law enforcement.

Do Internet Users Have a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Pennsylvania?

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently addressed whether people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their internet searches. In Commonwealth v. Kurtz, the Court ruled that individuals using standard search engines like Google generally do not have constitutional privacy protections in their search history, allowing law enforcement to obtain that information with a warrant.

Commonwealth v. Kurtz: Facts of the case

In this case, law enforcement obtained a search warrant for Google’s records in a brutal kidnapping and rape case that had remained unsolved. Specifically, investigators asked Google to produce any searches through a “reverse keyword search” warrant of the victim’s name or address. Google ultimately provided an IP address linked to the defendant, John Edward Kurtz, who had searched for the victim’s address a few hours before the crime.
With Kurtz as a suspect, they tracked him around 24 hours a day, ultimately finding that Kurtz worked at the same facility as the victim’s husband. Later, investigators retrieved a cigarette butt Kurtz had discarded, compared DNA from the butt to that which had been obtained from the victim, and developed a match between Kurtz’s DNA and that of the attacker. When police interviewed the defendant, he confessed to the abduction and four other assaults, showing police where three of the other victims lived.
Following his confessions, Kurtz was charged and went to trial on all five assaults. His defense team sought to suppress the Google database search, arguing the warrant violated the defendant’s privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment and the Pennsylvania Constitution. The trial court denied the motion, the defendant was convicted, and he was sentenced to fifty-nine to one hundred and eight years in prison.

The issue on appeal

He appealed his trial court conviction to the Superior Court, which upheld the ruling. The defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court to review two key points:
  1. Whether individuals can reasonably expect privacy of their search queries and IP addresses on the internet.
  2. Whether there was probable cause to support the search warrant for Google when there was no suspect or evidence linking the company to the crime.
The Supreme Court ultimately granted Kurtz’s petition to review. The main issue before the Court concerned (1) what is considered a “reasonable expectation of privacy” regarding internet search activity and (2)  what constitutes probable cause for a warrant to obtain this information.

Understanding the Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court delivered a plurality opinion in Commonwealth v. Kurtz, ruling that internet users do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their internet search records when using search engines like Google. While the justices were divided, the majority found against the defendant and in favor of the prosecution. The Court explained that before a person can challenge a search warrant, he must show that he had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the area searched.
Relying on third-party doctrine, the Court stated that information willingly shared with others, such as search queries or an IP address provided by a person to Google, is not protected by the Fourth Amendment’s privacy guarantees. In this scenario, Kurtz did not have an expectation of privacy in his internet searches through Google. Therefore, he could not challenge the validity of the search warrant and ask the trial court to suppress the incriminating evidence found through his search history.

Limits of the Court’s Decision

The PA Supreme Court limited its decision to unprotected internet searches. Users can take steps to protect their privacy online, such as:
  1. Using a Virtual Private Network (VPN)
  2. Searching on a private browser
  3. Opting out of data collection when using search engines.

What This Ruling Means for Online Privacy and Criminal Cases

Without taking additional steps to ensure privacy protection, a user does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy that would protect their internet search history from being obtained with a warrant.

Facing criminal charges in Philadelphia?

If your case involves internet searches, digital evidence, or surveillance obtained through a warrant, you may have grounds to challenge how that evidence was collected. If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges or wants to appeal your conviction, we can help. Contact John F. McCaul for a free consultation to discuss the facts of your case. With years of criminal defense experience in Philadelphia, John will develop the best legal strategy for your charges.
​

Share This Story

Dark brown gavel resting on a wooden blockPA Superior Court clarifies reasonable suspicion and its impact on drug investigations

John F. McCaul

Related Articles and Topics

Every moment counts. We’re ready to fight for you.

Take Control of Your Defense

Proudly serving clients in Philadelphia, Montgomery, Delaware, and Chester counties — and representing federal cases across Pennsylvania.