US Supreme Court weighs future of geofence search warrants

On Monday, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in Chatrie v. United States, a landmark case that could redefine digital privacy rights across the United States. The case centers on the constitutionality of geofence search warrants—which are warrants compelling tech companies to provide location data for users in a specific area. This is the first Fourth Amendment case, the US constitutional amendment protecting against unreasonable searches, that the Supreme Court has considered this decade. The legal battle stems from the case of Okello Chatrie, a Virginia man convicted of a 2019 bank robbery. After police saw a suspect on security footage using a phone, they used a geofence warrant to compel Google to provide location data for all devices near the bank within an hour of the robbery. Google provided data that eventually led police to identify three account holders, including Chatrie, who was later sentenced to more than 11 years in prison.

Federal agents first used geofence warrants in 2016. Since 2018, federal agencies have filed thousands of geofence warrants each year, targeting databases held by Google, which has billions of users, as well as other tech companies like Microsoft, Yahoo, Uber, and Snap. According to Chatrie’s legal team, who served as his advocates, the warrant allowed the government to “Search first and develop suspicions later,” which they contend violates Fourth Amendment protections. Civil liberties advocates also argue these warrants are inherently overbroad and unconstitutional because they return information about people who are nearby but have no connection to an alleged incident.

The government defended the practice. Representatives argued that Chatrie had actively chosen to let Google collect, store, and use his location data, and that the warrant merely instructed the company to find and provide the required data. D. John Sauer, the U.S. solicitor general arguing for the government, stated that the defendant’s reasoning would mean no geofence warrant of any kind could ever be carried out.

Following oral arguments in Washington, the nine justices of the Supreme Court appeared divided. While a total ban on the warrants appears unlikely, experts suggest the justices may favor a narrow ruling. Orin Kerr, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, noted the court was likely to reject Chatrie’s arguments regarding the lawfulness of the warrant. Cathy Gellis, a lawyer who writes at Techdirt, observed that the court appeared to favor the warrants but there may be hesitance to fully get rid of them, suggesting the justices may opt for baby steps rather than a total prohibition.

Why it matters

The Supreme Court’s decision in Chatrie v. United States will set a critical precedent for digital privacy in the U.S., potentially limiting how law enforcement can use location data collected by tech giants to identify suspects.