Supreme Court to Review Geofence Warrants
The Supreme Court has announced it will hear a case that questions the constitutionality of “geofence warrants,” which law enforcement agencies utilize to identify suspects by analyzing cellphones located near a crime scene.
This case, accepted by the court on Friday, could serve as a significant examination of the Fourth Amendment in an era where technological advancements allow for extensive tracking of individuals through their electronic devices.
In this particular instance, police secured a warrant requesting Google to provide all location history data from within 150 feet of a bank robbery. This type of request is referred to as a geofence.
Law enforcement subsequently approached Google twice more—without obtaining additional warrants—to narrow down suspicious devices and identify their owners.
This investigation led authorities to Okello Chatrie, who is now challenging the validity of the warrant and seeking to have any evidence obtained through it excluded from court proceedings.
“Geofence warrants are a powerful law enforcement tool. At the same time, they raise significant Fourth Amendment concerns,” stated Adam Unikowski, Chatrie’s chief attorney. He argued that these warrants represent an extensive fishing expedition rather than adhering to the specific circumstances required by the Constitution.
The Trump administration had advised against taking up this case. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that Chatrie had voluntarily opted into Google’s location tracking services initially.
Sauer also likened location data to other physical markers left at crime scenes that investigators are permitted to use. He noted that such geofence warrants would no longer be feasible since Google altered its policies years ago, ensuring that location data is stored locally on devices rather than centrally managed by the company.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously reviewed this matter and upheld the warrant; however, judges provided widely differing justifications for their decisions. Some judges contended that a geofence request did not constitute a search under constitutional standards, while others disagreed or avoided addressing that question altogether, ruling instead on grounds of “good faith” regarding government actions.
Technology companies have expressed their views on this issue, urging justices to clarify legal standards surrounding such warrants. X (formerly known as Twitter) emphasized that contractual obligations made by companies regarding data protection should be considered in judicial rulings.
