The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on Monday over whether law enforcement's use of a 'geofence' warrant to collect cellphone location data near the scene of a Virginia armed robbery violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches.
Case Background
The appeal was brought by defendant Okello Chatrie, who conditionally pleaded guilty in 2022 to robbing a Midlothian, Virginia credit union. He reserved the right to challenge the evidence obtained through what he argues was an illegal search. President Donald Trump's administration is defending the investigative method that helped secure Chatrie's nearly 12-year prison sentence for brandishing a gun and stealing $195,000.
How Geofence Warrants Work
Court-approved geofence warrants compel third-party companies, such as Alphabet's Google in this case, to search customer location data for mobile devices near a crime scene. Investigators initially receive an anonymized list, which is narrowed down through a multi-step process. Ultimately, the company provides account holder information to police for potential leads.
The case highlights tensions between an 18th-century constitutional provision safeguarding against unreasonable searches and digital-age technology transforming crime investigation.
Details of the Robbery
Authorities exhausted all other leads before seeking a geofence warrant based on footage of the robber using a cellphone at the credit union. Google location data placed Chatrie at the scene, along with 18 other users who had opted into Google's 'location history' feature. They were within a 150-meter radius of the credit union during a one-hour window of the May 2019 robbery.
Further investigation of Chatrie's residences led authorities to find two 'robbery-style demand notes' in his bedroom, a pistol, and nearly $100,000 in bills wrapped in bands signed by the targeted credit union teller.
Legal Arguments
Chatrie's lawyers argue that geofencing amounts to a dragnet search exposing mass private information, lacking the specificity required by the Fourth Amendment. Justice Department lawyers counter that Chatrie's opt-in to Google's location history eliminated any expectation of privacy. They also claim police had 'probable cause' to believe Google held information to identify the robber, accomplices, and witnesses.
Google, not a party to the case, filed a brief arguing for 'robust application of the Fourth Amendment to the modern digital context.' The company says it has objected to over 3,000 geofence warrants on constitutional grounds and can no longer respond to such warrants after moving location history retention to users' devices. Previously, about one in three active Google users had location history enabled, estimated at around 500 million people.
Lower Court Decisions
Virginia-based U.S. District Judge Mary Lauck ruled that the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment but denied Chatrie's suppression request, citing investigators' good faith belief in the warrant's legality. The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision, leading to Chatrie's Supreme Court appeal.
Supreme Court Context
In 2018, the Supreme Court limited police ability to obtain cellphone location data, requiring a warrant for such information. In Chatrie's case, the justices agreed to decide whether geofence warrants are unconstitutional but declined to hear his evidence-exclusion claim. If Chatrie wins the constitutional argument, his case would likely return to the district court for further proceedings. A ruling is expected by around the end of June.
