The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Monday in a case that could reshape the boundaries of digital privacy, focusing on the use of geofence warrants by law enforcement. The case stems from the 2019 robbery of a bank in suburban Richmond, Virginia, where suspect Okello Chatrie was apprehended after police used a geofence warrant to obtain location data from Google.
The Case of Okello Chatrie
Chatrie made off with $195,000 from the Call Federal Credit Union in Midlothian and evaded capture until investigators turned to a geofence warrant. This warrant allowed police to create a virtual perimeter around the crime scene and collect the location history of cellphones in that area during the time of the robbery. Google’s data revealed that Chatrie’s phone was among a handful of devices near the bank, leading to a search of his home where nearly $100,000 in cash was found, including bills with teller-signed bands. Chatrie pleaded guilty and received a sentence of nearly 12 years in prison.
Legal Challenge
Chatrie’s lawyers argue that the geofence warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches. They contend that authorities gathered location data on innocent people without any evidence of involvement in the crime. Prosecutors, however, maintain that Chatrie had no reasonable expectation of privacy because he voluntarily opted into Google’s location history service. A federal judge ruled that the search was unconstitutional but allowed the evidence under the good faith exception, as the officer reasonably believed the warrant was valid. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction in a split decision, while the Fifth Circuit has ruled that geofence warrants are categorically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.
Broader Implications
Geofence warrants have been used in various high-profile cases, including the investigation of the January 6 Capitol riot and the search for the pipe bomber who targeted political party headquarters. Civil libertarians warn that these warrants constitute fishing expeditions that invade the privacy of innocent bystanders. The Trump administration has argued that such tools should be available with judicial oversight, while Chatrie’s legal team seeks a complete ban. The Policing Project at NYU School of Law urges the court to avoid an all-or-nothing approach, noting that a ban could impede legitimate law enforcement activities.
Supreme Court Precedent
This case follows the 2018 Supreme Court decision in Carpenter v. United States, where the court ruled 5-4 that law enforcement needs a warrant to access cellphone tower data for extended periods. Chief Justice John Roberts highlighted the “seismic shifts in digital technology” and the vast amount of location data collected by wireless carriers. The current case will test whether the third-party doctrine—that information shared with others is not private—applies to geofence warrants, or whether such warrants require a higher standard of specificity.
The court’s decision, expected later this year, will have significant consequences for digital privacy and law enforcement tactics, potentially setting new limits on the use of reverse location searches.
