If you search for information on Google without using additional privacy protections, you should not expect it to remain private. A recent decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Internet users who enter search queries on Google do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those searches, allowing law enforcement to access Google search history without a warrant during an investigation.

The decision came after a recent criminal investigation into sexual harassment. In an effort to identify a suspect, police asked Google to provide information about users who searched the victim’s name and home address at the time of the crime. Google responded by supplying anonymized search data tied to specific devices and accounts. Investigators later narrowed the results, eventually linking the discoveries to Edward Kurtz, who was arrested and convicted.

Why aren’t Google searches safe?

At the heart of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision is the long-standing “third-party doctrine,” which holds that information voluntarily shared with a third party loses Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, (via Bloomberg Law). Writing for the plurality, Justice Christine Donohue said that when users type queries into Google, they knowingly disclose that information to a private company. As a result, the court concluded that those searches were not protected by a reasonable expectation of privacy.

In its ruling, the court compared Google searches to phone numbers or bank records shared with financial institutions, categories of data that courts have historically allowed police to access with fewer legal limits. The judges also distinguished between search queries and more sensitive digital records such as precise location data. For example, in Carpenter v. United States (2018), the US Supreme Court ruled that accessing long-term mobile phone location data requires a warrant, recognizing its deeply revealing nature. In contrast, the Pennsylvania court described the search terms as less intrusive and not tantamount to the content of private communications.

However, the decision did not yield a clear majority. The dissenting judges raised serious concerns about privacy in the modern digital age. He argued that the ruling was unnecessary, given that prosecutors already had enough evidence to pursue the case without relying on warrantless access to the search data. The disagreement also raised questions about whether the third party doctrine should be applied so broadly at a time when Internet searches can reveal intimate details about a person’s health, beliefs, fears, and intentions.

Meanwhile, the case has drawn renewed scrutiny of Google’s role as a gatekeeper of user data. While Google generally requires legal process before handing over information, it complied with a court order in this case rather than seeking a full warrant. Critics argue that this highlights the need for stronger protections, including limits on data retention and clear standards for resisting broad law enforcement requests.