PA High Court Rules Users May Lack Privacy in Google Searches

In December 2025, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a ruling that has many worried about the level of privacy they can expect when searching online. According to the ruling, the third-party doctrine suggests that when the internet user voluntarily provides information to a third party, they may not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in some circumstances, although courts have limited this doctrine for certain types of sensitive digital data.

The case and subsequent ruling have raised serious issues about digital privacy rights. Below, our Charlotte divorce attorney explains more about the ruling and how this may affect divorcing couples.

The legal basis for the case

In this specific case, police investigating a rape obtained a reverse keyword search warrant, which was later challenged on constitutional grounds. The warrant directed Google to compile a list of anyone who had searched for the victim’s address in the week before the rape and home invasion occurred. Google informed police that John Edward Kurtz had looked up the victim’s address just hours before the crime.

The Pennsylvania court considered whether Kurtz had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the search records at issue, ultimately concluding that the defendant did not. Among other factors relevant to the court’s reasonable expectation of privacy analysis, the court suggested that, in this context, internet users may have a reduced expectation of privacy in certain search data because “it is common knowledge that websites, internet-based applications and internet service providers collect, and then sell, user data.”

While many may agree with the result, it has still raised a serious question. Do reverse keyword warrants violate the Fourth Amendment or other constitutional privacy protections?

How reverse search warrants may violate privacy

One of the biggest issues raised in the Google search privacy case in Pennsylvania is that critics argue that these warrants may stretch traditional probable cause requirements.

Reverse search warrants are investigative tools used by law enforcement agencies. They identify internet users who searched for specific terms. They are called reverse search warrants because law enforcement officials work backwards, using data to identify suspects rather than using a suspect to collect evidence.

The practice of reverse search warrants has been very controversial among privacy advocates. Advocacy groups have claimed that these searches are a violation of the public’s privacy rights because they target such a large group of people who have no reason to be suspected of a crime.

Protections under the Fourth Amendment

Under the Fourth Amendment, all individuals in the United States are protected from unreasonable search and seizures by law enforcement or the government. The Fourth Amendment generally requires that law enforcement obtain a search warrant from a judge after showing probable cause. Search warrants must also outline the scope of the search, such as the items and location to be searched.

Federal courts have often applied traditional Fourth Amendment principles to digital evidence, but the Supreme Court has also recognized that some digital data may require greater privacy protection. Today, the federal courts generally recognize that modern digital life requires increased protection for internet users in some contexts, particularly involving sensitive data like location information.

North Carolina courts routinely admit digital evidence, provided it is properly authenticated under the Rules of Evidence. There is limited publicly available appellate guidance in North Carolina on reverse keyword warrants.

Implications for users

So, what are the implications of reverse keyword searches and reverse search warrants on internet users? There are many, and they include:

• Mass surveillance: Critics argue that reverse search warrants turn large populations of innocent people into possible suspects.
• Chilling First Amendment freedoms: Critics argue that reverse search warrants can result in high levels of anxiety and keep people from looking up political, private, or sensitive information because they understand the government may learn of their identities.
• Violation of Fourth Amendment rights: When used, reverse keyword searches are typically conducted through warrants issued by a judge and give law enforcement agencies and the government the power to request data from tech companies based on keywords rather than a named individual.
• Data harvesting: Critics argue that one reverse search warrant can violate the rights of hundreds or thousands of people. Law enforcement agencies can seek data through warrants, though courts require probable cause and particularity, and are increasingly scrutinizing these requests.

Reverse search warrants are mainly used by law enforcement agencies, and they are typically reserved for criminal investigations. Still, the evidence obtained through these broad and often controversial searches may, in some circumstances, be introduced in civil proceedings, subject to evidentiary rules and constitutional challenges. Although primarily used in criminal cases, issues involving digital search data may arise in divorce proceedings, such as:

• Discovery evidence: Search data showing what a spouse looked up online during a certain time may be used as evidence in disputes involving issues such as hidden assets or infidelity.
• Hidden assets: If search data includes queries related to cryptocurrency, offshore accounts, or the sale of property, the information may be used in property division hearings.
• Harassment cases: If one party in a divorce is accused of harassing or stalking their spouse or children, information obtained from reverse search warrants can establish patterns of behavior.
• Admissibility: Reverse search warrants raise many Fourth Amendment concerns, which can result in legal questions about their admissibility in court.

Although reverse search warrants are used primarily in criminal cases, this does not mean they cannot impact civil law, such as divorce cases.

Our divorce attorneys in Charlotte can protect your rights

There is a lot of evidence used in divorce cases, and the reach for obtaining this evidence is always expanding. At Epperson Law Group, PLLC, our Charlotte divorce attorneys always stay current with the laws that impact our clients’ cases so we can provide the sound advice they need. We can put our experience to work for you, too. Call us today or contact us online to schedule a consultation with one of our experienced attorneys and to learn more about how we can help.