The Supreme Court on Monday seemed inclined to rule that police could use geofence warrants that collect the location history of cellphone users to identify individuals near crime scenes. The justices heard nearly two hours of arguments in an appeal from Okello Chatrie, who pleaded guilty to robbing a bank in a suburb of Richmond, Virginia. Chatrie evaded police until they employed a geofence warrant, a technological tool that erected a virtual fence and allowed them to locate cellphones near the bank around the time of the robbery in May 2019.
The justices did not appear to embrace arguments from Adam Unikowsky, Chatrie's lawyer, that geofence warrants are too general to comply with the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches. Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that the warrant in question seemed specific, stating, "This isn't that. It identifies a place, a crime, a timeframe."
The federal appeals court in Richmond upheld Chatrie's conviction in a fractured ruling. In contrast, the federal appeals court in New Orleans ruled that geofence warrants "are general warrants categorically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment." This case represents the court's latest consideration of how a constitutional provision ratified in 1791 applies to modern technology.
The justices seemed eager to avoid a broad ruling. They could limit the time and geographic area covered by such warrants, or even decline to decide whether police actions constituted a search requiring a warrant. Instead, the court might rule that, assuming a warrant is required, police can constitutionally conduct geofence searches. A ruling for Chatrie, who is serving a nearly 12-year prison term, might not ultimately help him. Even the federal judge who ruled the search violated Chatrie's rights allowed the evidence to be used because the officer who applied for the warrant reasonably believed he was acting properly.
