US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional privacy protections
The US Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that geofence warrants constitute a Fourth Amendment search, giving individuals a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cell phone location data.
In a 6–3 decision in Chatrie v. US, the US Supreme Court held that law enforcement's use of geofence warrants—which compel tech companies to hand over cell phone location data from people near crime scenes—is a Fourth Amendment search. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion, stating that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records of their phone's location, even if obtained for a limited time from a third-party company.
The case stems from an armed bank robbery in Richmond, Virginia, where police used a geofence warrant to track Okello Chatrie, who had opted into Google's location history feature. Chatrie was sentenced to 12 years after pleading guilty. His lawyers argued the search was overly broad and violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
The majority rejected the government's argument that enabling location history is a voluntary choice, noting that Google repeatedly prompts users to turn it on, warning devices won't work correctly, without disclosing how often data is recorded or how it might be shared with the government.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor added that even short-term monitoring can reveal intimate details about a person's associations. Privacy advocates worry these warrants can be too broad in area and time. Google has acknowledged that geofence searches risk sweeping in thousands of innocent users.
The ruling is the first on Fourth Amendment digital privacy since a landmark 2018 case. The appeals court will now assess whether the specific search was reasonable.
