Supreme Court to Hear Case on Geofence Warrants and Cellphone Location Data

Washington, D.C. – The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments next week in *Chatrie v. United States*, a pivotal case addressing the constitutionality of law enforcement's use of "geofence warrants" to access cellphone location data. The case originates from the 2019 robbery of a federal credit union in Midlothian, Virginia. Following the robbery, in which $195,000 was stolen, authorities obtained a geofence warrant directing Google to provide location data for cellphones in the vicinity of the bank during the time of the incident. The warrant initially targeted devices within a 150-meter radius of the bank for the 30 minutes before and after the robbery. Google provided an initial list of accounts linked to devices in the designated area, without identifying the users. Law enforcement then requested data on accounts present in the area during a two-hour period. Subsequently, detectives requested and received names and information for three accounts, including that of Okello Chatrie, the defendant. The latter two steps were conducted without obtaining additional warrants. Chatrie was subsequently charged with bank robbery and other offenses. He argued in a Virginia federal district court that the evidence obtained via the geofence warrant should be suppressed, claiming it violated his Fourth Amendment rights. While the district court agreed the warrant lacked sufficient probable cause, it allowed the evidence, citing law enforcement's "good faith." Chatrie pleaded guilty to bank robbery and gun charges, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. He received a sentence of 141 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld the district court's decision. The appellate court reasoned that Chatrie lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding location data voluntarily shared with Google. A full court review affirmed this ruling in a divided decision. The Supreme Court agreed to hear Chatrie's appeal in January. Chatrie argues the geofence warrant constituted an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment, infringing on his property interest and reasonable expectation of privacy in his location data. He further asserts the warrant was akin to a "general warrant," allowing the government to search first and develop suspicion later. He also contends it lacked specific identification of accounts or probable cause. The government counters that Chatrie had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his location data, given his choice to allow Google to collect it. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argues the warrant did not give law enforcement free rein to rummage through Google's database, but rather directed Google to provide necessary information. The Cato Institute, in an amicus brief, suggests the court's decision could clarify Fourth Amendment protections in the digital age, addressing property interests in digital records stored with tech companies and the warrant requirements for accessing such data. A decision in *Chatrie v. United States* is anticipated by late June or early July.