Photo: Tasos Katopodis / Getty Images News / Getty Images
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments Monday (April 27) in a closely watched case that could reshape the balance between digital privacy and law enforcement tactics. The justices are considering whether police use of "geofence warrants," which collect cellphone location data from thousands of people near a crime scene, violates the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.
The case centers on Okello Chatrie, who was convicted of robbing a bank in suburban Richmond, Virginia, in 2019. When the investigation stalled, police obtained a geofence warrant from Google, requiring the company to search location data for all users near the bank at the time of the robbery. This led police to Chatrie, whose phone was identified as being at the scene. Officers later found nearly $100,000 in cash, a gun, and demand notes in his home, and Chatrie confessed to the crime. He pleaded guilty but reserved the right to challenge the geofence warrant on appeal, arguing it was an unconstitutional search of personal data.
Unlike traditional warrants that target specific suspects, geofence warrants operate in reverse: police first ask for information about all cellphones in a location, then narrow down the list to possible suspects. Supporters say these warrants help solve crimes when other leads are missing, but critics argue they sweep up data from many innocent people and resemble the "general warrants" the Constitution was meant to prevent.
The Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Carpenter v. United States required police to obtain a warrant before accessing cell tower location data for more than seven days, citing a "reasonable expectation of privacy." In Chatrie's case, however, the government argues that users voluntarily share their location data with tech companies like Google by opting in to services—potentially weakening privacy claims. Chatrie's attorneys counter that people do not fully understand or meaningfully consent to this kind of tracking, and that the scope of the warrant was too broad.
Lower courts have split on the legality of geofence warrants. The Richmond-based appeals court upheld Chatrie's conviction, while a federal appeals court in New Orleans found such warrants to be unconstitutional general warrants.
The outcome of the Supreme Court's decision could have wide implications, not just for location data, but also for other digital records and investigative techniques. Law enforcement agencies have used geofence warrants in high-profile cases, including the investigation of the January 6 Capitol riot and several murder cases across the country.
As Americans' personal data is increasingly stored online, the court's ruling will determine how much of that information police can access in the future—and under what circumstances. A decision is expected later this year.