Supreme Court: Police Use of Location Data Warrants Requires Fourth Amendment Protection

Why it matters locally: This Supreme Court ruling will directly impact law enforcement procedures for agencies like the Omaha Police Department and Lancaster County Sheriffs Office when seeking digital location data in criminal investigations, potentially requiring more stringent judicial oversight for geofence warrants.

---

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that law enforcement officials conduct a "search" under the Fourth Amendment when they use geofence warrants to obtain cellphone location data from tech companies. The 6-3 decision arose from the 2019 bank robbery of a federal credit union outside Richmond, Virginia. An armed robber handed a teller a note demanding money and left with nearly $200,000. Lacking leads, law enforcement officials obtained a geofence warrant directing Google to provide location data for all cellphones near the bank during a 30-minute window around the robbery. Google provided the data in three stages. First, the company supplied a list of 19 accounts linked to devices within 150 meters of the bank during the relevant time window. Investigators then requested additional information about nine of those accounts tracked over a two-hour period. Finally, a detective obtained names and details for three accounts, including one belonging to Okello Chatrie. Law enforcement officials used Chatrie's location data to obtain a warrant to search two residences, where they found approximately $100,000 of the stolen cash, a gun, and demand notes. Chatrie pleaded guilty to bank robbery but appealed the use of evidence obtained through the geofence warrant, arguing it violated the Fourth Amendment. A federal district judge agreed the warrant lacked the probable cause and specificity the Fourth Amendment requires. The judge nonetheless allowed prosecutors to use the evidence, citing a "good faith" exception that permits use of evidence obtained under defective warrants when officers acted in good faith. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld that ruling in a divided decision, finding law enforcement officials had not conducted a "search" because Chatrie could not reasonably expect location data he voluntarily provided to Google to remain private. Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan rejected that reasoning. She wrote that "[a]n individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone's location, and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information—even though for only a limited time, and from a third-party tech company." Kagan grounded the decision in the Fourth Amendment's purpose: to "safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials." While early Fourth Amendment cases focused on physical trespassing, she wrote, the Court has since expanded protection to areas where individuals maintain reasonable expectations of privacy. Kagan cited the Court's 2018 decision in *Carpenter v. United States*, which found accessing cell-site location information constitutes a search. She noted the similarities between that case and geofence data: both provide detailed records of personal movement. The fact that law enforcement officials obtained only a short period of location data did not matter, Kagan wrote. Even limited data can reveal sensitive information about visits to places like psychiatric offices, abortion clinics, or defense attorneys' offices. Nor did it matter that Chatrie gave Google permission to collect the data. Location information, Kagan emphasized, represents "the automatic price of conventional cell-phone usage" and is more personal than typical third-party records the Fourth Amendment does not protect. Kagan stressed that the Fourth Amendment prohibits only "unreasonable" searches. She returned the case to lower courts to determine whether the geofence warrant met constitutional standards by providing "particularized information" based on "probable cause." Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred, agreeing the use of Chatrie's location data constituted a search. He employed what he described as a "more traditional approach," arguing the data was Chatrie's personal property that the government had searched. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined partly by Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett. Alito argued the majority's decision "will send seismic waves through our Fourth Amendment doctrine" but contended it would not affect Chatrie's case. He argued the Court should have upheld the lower court's decision based on the good faith exception, since the Fourth Circuit had found Chatrie could not overcome that exception. Alito also noted that Google has since modified its Location History service in ways that would prevent future use of geofence warrants. Chatrie was sentenced to nearly 12 years in prison followed by three years of supervised release.