Cops Use of ‘Geofence’ Data Requires Search Warrant, Says SCOTUS

Original article here

A divided Supreme Court has clamped down on a surveillance technique that law enforcement agencies have leaned on with growing frequency, ruling that police must obtain a warrant before pulling cellphone location records from tech companies.

The 6 to 3 decision arrived in Chatrie v. United States, a case rooted in a Virginia bank heist that has now reshaped digital privacy law nationwide.

At the center of the dispute is a tool called a geofencing warrant.

Rather than targeting a specific suspect, this method casts a wide net, pulling location records from every cellphone that passed through a defined area during a set window of time.

Investigators then sift through that data to narrow down potential suspects.

Three justices broke from the majority. Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, and Clarence Thomas each dissented from the ruling.

Government attorneys representing the Trump administration had fought to preserve the practice, contending that data willingly shared with private companies forfeits the heightened privacy protections attached to other personal records.

That argument failed to sway the majority.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the Court, stated that “an 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.”

The Court’s opinion zeroed in specifically on the warrant used to track down the defendant, Okello Chatrie, finding that it amounted to a search requiring constitutional scrutiny.

Yet the ruling stopped short of declaring Chatrie’s conviction invalid. The justices instead kicked the matter back down to the Court of Appeals for a fresh look.

Kagan addressed this handoff directly, reminding lower courts that the Supreme Court functions as a “court of review, not a first view.” She stated that appellate judges must now examine whether each phase of the search adhered to the Fourth Amendment’s demands for particularity and probable cause.

The dispute traces back to 2019, when a bank in Virginia was robbed. Detectives investigating the heist turned to Google, demanding location records for any device that had been near the bank during the robbery.

Crucially, the warrant didn’t name Chatrie or any other individual suspect. It instead sought a bulk data dump covering everyone whose phone pinged near the crime scene, regardless of involvement.

Google complied, ultimately turning over location information tied to three separate phone users who had been in the area at the time of the robbery.

That data led investigators straight to Chatrie. Once confronted, he confessed to carrying out the robbery.

His defense team later attacked the legality of the warrant, arguing that geofencing tactics flip traditional police work on its head by allowing officers “to search first and develop suspicions later,” rather than building probable cause against a known individual beforehand.

Law enforcement’s growing reliance on this technique reflects a broader shift toward digital investigative tools as smartphones have become near-universal sources of location data.

Chatrie remains behind bars, serving a nearly 12-year sentence for the robbery.

Whether that conviction ultimately survives now hinges on how the Court of Appeals applies the Supreme Court’s new constitutional guardrails.

The decision stands as one of the most consequential privacy rulings in years, drawing a clear line around how far police can reach into Americans’ digital lives without first convincing a judge they have cause to look.