The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Monday in a case that could reshape how law enforcement uses cellphone location data to investigate crimes, testing the boundaries of Fourth Amendment protections in the digital age.
At issue is the constitutionality of so-called geofence warrants, which allow police to compel tech companies like Google to identify users whose devices were present in a defined geographic area during a specific time window — without first identifying a suspect, per SCOTUSblog. The case stems from a 2019 bank robbery in Midlothian, Virginia.
Chatrie vs. United States involves Okello Chatrie, convicted of robbing a credit union at gunpoint and fleeing with approximately $195,000. Police obtained a geofence warrant from Google for location data in the area around the bank during the robbery. The data helped narrow down devices, leading investigators to Chatrie after further steps, including deanonymization.
Lower courts split on the issue. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the case en banc and divided evenly, while the Fifth Circuit has ruled in a separate case that such warrants are inherently overbroad and violate the Fourth Amendment, per The Brennan Center.
Geofence warrants work by drawing a virtual “fence” around a crime scene. Tech companies search their databases — often involving Location History data compiled from GPS, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and cell signals — and return an anonymized list of devices in that zone. Investigators can then seek more precise data on promising leads.
Proponents say the tool is valuable for “no-suspect” investigations, helping police generate leads when traditional methods fall short. Critics argue it amounts to a digital dragnet that sweeps up location information on potentially hundreds or thousands of innocent people, raising serious privacy concerns.
In Carpenter v. United States (2018), the Supreme Court held that police generally need a warrant to obtain extended cell-site location information (CSLI) because individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such data. The Chatrie case asks whether similar protections apply to app-based location data and whether geofence warrants satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s requirements for particularity and probable cause.
Petitioners contend the warrants function like prohibited general warrants, requiring companies to search vast troves of user data without targeting a specific individual. They also question whether users truly “voluntarily” share location data when prompted by apps.
The government maintains the warrants are lawful and supported by probable cause tied to the crime scene and timeframe. A decision is expected by late June or early July.
Google announced in 2023 that it would stop storing certain Location History data on its servers and reduce retention periods, a move that could limit future geofence requests but does not resolve the constitutional questions before the court, per SCOTUSblog.
The outcome could affect not only geofence practices but also other “reverse search” techniques used by law enforcement, such as keyword warrants or requests targeting specific locations or behaviors across user data.
Legal experts describe the case as one of the most significant digital privacy matters the court has taken up in years.
