In a ruling that applies established constitutional protections to modern digital technology, the Supreme Court determined on Monday that law enforcement must obtain a warrant when seeking broad cellphone location data sweeps. The case centered on a Virginia bank robbery, where the conviction of Okello Chatrie relied in part on cellphone location intelligence secured from Google via a geofence warrant. These types of warrants allow investigators to acquire data identifying cellphone users present in the vicinity of a crime scene, even when those individuals are not targeted as specific suspects.
By a 6-3 vote, the court held that expansive geofence surveillance qualifies as a search under the Fourth Amendment, which safeguards citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The justices rejected the Trump administration’s stance that such warrants were unnecessary. While the majority affirmed that police must at least seek a court-authorized warrant to conduct this type of surveillance, they did not rule on the legality of the specific warrant issued in the Virginia case.
The ruling focuses on the case of Okello Chatrie, who was convicted of robbing the Midlothian branch of the Call Federal Credit Union in May 2019. The perpetrator was observed carrying a cellphone as he entered the bank. After brandishing a firearm, he escaped with $195,000 in cash. Chatrie was later identified as a suspect after police, using a judicially approved warrant, received data from Google regarding users in the area who kept the “location history” setting enabled on their mobile devices. The resulting information placed Chatrie at or near the bank 10 minutes before the crime, and it showed him leaving the scene shortly thereafter.
The Supreme Court declined to declare whether the specific warrant used in the Chatrie investigation was valid, instead remanding the case to a lower court for further examination. Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan stated that courts are obligated to prevent “undue encroachment” on constitutional rights. “The Fourth Amendment must, as ever, protect against unjustified government intrusion on the privacy of the individual,” she stated. Kagan noted that the sheer volume of data available today could provide the government with a “virtual panopticon” to scrutinize the activities of its citizens.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito argued that a warrant should not be required, describing the court’s decision as an “irresponsible escapade” that it should not have considered. He accused the majority of “striking a pose as a great champion of privacy in the digital age.” Privacy advocates have frequently criticized geofence warrants, characterizing them as dragnet surveillance that collects data on innocent bystanders. Critics have warned that these tools could potentially target disfavored political groups, such as protesters. In the Chatrie matter, Google initially disclosed information regarding 19 users, which police later narrowed down.
Although Chatrie was sentenced to nearly 12 years in prison after pleading guilty to federal charges of armed robbery and brandishing a firearm, he reserved his right to appeal based on the legal issue now decided by the Supreme Court. As the case returns to lower courts, defense counsel is expected to argue that the warrant was too broad and, consequently, violated Chatrie’s Fourth Amendment protections. This ruling follows a history of Supreme Court decisions regarding technology, including a 2017 case where the court ruled that warrants are required to access location data derived from cellphone towers.
