Supreme Court Weighs Constitutionality of Geofence Warrants

The Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments in *Chatrie v. United States*, a case examining the legality of geofence warrants. Okello Chatrie, convicted for a 2019 bank robbery in Virginia, challenged the warrant used to gather location data from Google, arguing it violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The warrant requested Google provide location information for cell phones near the robbery site during a specific time frame.

During oral arguments, justices questioned whether the geofence warrant obtained by law enforcement adhered to Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

The investigation into the 2019 robbery of a federal credit union in suburban Richmond, Virginia, stalled until law enforcement obtained the geofence warrant. The robber stole nearly $200,000. The warrant directed Google to provide location information of devices near the bank during the robbery.

Google provided device location data in three stages. First, Google delivered a list of 19 anonymous accounts within 150 meters of the bank during the 30 minutes before and after the robbery. The government then requested details on nine accounts active in the same area for two hours. Finally, a detective requested, and received, names and information for three accounts, including Chatrie’s.

Authorities then obtained a warrant to search two residences linked to Chatrie. Inside, they found almost $100,000 of the stolen money, a gun, and demand notes.

Chatrie argued that the location data evidence should be suppressed because the geofence warrant lacked probable cause and specificity required by the Fourth Amendment. A federal district judge initially sided with Chatrie on the warrant's validity but allowed the evidence based on law enforcement's "good faith."

Chatrie pleaded guilty, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence. He received a sentence of almost 12 years in prison, followed by three years of supervised release.

A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the denial. A majority of the panel found Chatrie's voluntary sharing of location data with Google negated a reasonable expectation of privacy. The full court of appeals affirmed that ruling in a split decision.

Adam Unikowsky, representing Chatrie, argued that the geofence warrant constituted an unconstitutional search of his client’s location history. Unikowsky asserted Chatrie held a reasonable expectation of privacy. He said the warrant lacked probable cause and gave the authorities unchecked discretion, casting Google as a magistrate.

Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Eric Feigin, representing the government, countered that Chatrie sought an unreasonable expansion of the Fourth Amendment. He added that Chatrie's interpretation would hinder investigations of serious crimes like kidnappings and robberies.

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether Chatrie could claim his location data should be private, suggesting users can disable location tracking. Justice Samuel Alito noted Chatrie actively enabled location services, implying voluntary disclosure. Justice Amy Coney Barrett emphasized the warrant covered a short duration in a public location, where expectations of privacy are limited.

However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor highlighted the trial judge's finding that Chatrie did not explicitly consent to sharing location data. Justice Neil Gorsuch voiced concerns that a ruling favoring the government could extend to warrantless searches of other digital media like emails.

Feigin distinguished location data from private digital information, asserting location data relates to public movements, not private thoughts. Roberts expressed concern that geofence warrants could reveal attendance at sensitive locations like churches or political organizations. Feigin cited the Stored Communications Act and the fact that users opted into sharing location data to allay those fears.

Justice Elena Kagan questioned why only long-term patterns of life should be protected, instead of isolated sensitive events. Alito suggested the court's ruling might not impact Chatrie’s case due to the Fourth Circuit's ruling on the good faith exception. He also noted Google’s shift to device-based storage of location history. Some justices discussed a ruling that might clarify warrant requirements, though Justice Brett Kavanaugh supported the detective involved in the case, while Feigin saw "value" in better defining what the Fourth Amendment requires.