The Supreme Court heard arguments April 27 in Chatrie v. United States, the first major digital-privacy Fourth Amendment case since 2018, with a decision due by late June.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 27 in *Chatrie v. United States*, the first significant Fourth Amendment digital-privacy case the Court has taken up since its 2018 decision in *Carpenter v. United States* [1]. At issue is whether geofence warrants, court orders that compel Google to identify every device user located near a crime scene during a specified time window, constitute an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment [2]. The justices appeared divided, with several expressing concern about the breadth of the technique while others pressed on the practical consequences for law enforcement investigations [1].
The case arises from a 2019 bank robbery in Midlothian, Virginia, in which federal investigators used a geofence warrant served on Google to identify Okello Chatrie as a suspect [2]. Chatrie moved to suppress the location data, arguing the warrant amounted to a dragnet search of all individuals in the vicinity, innocent or otherwise [2]. Lower courts denied suppression, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit conflict over the technique's constitutional status [2]. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued for the government that existing third-party doctrine and the voluntary sharing of location data with a service provider defeats any reasonable expectation of privacy [1].
The decision carries immediate, practical weight well beyond this single prosecution. Geofence warrants have become a standard investigative tool across federal and state law enforcement agencies, used in cases ranging from bank robberies to the January 6, 2021, Capitol breach [1]. A ruling that geofence warrants require individualized probable cause directed at a specific suspect, rather than a location-based dragnet, would require investigators to restructure their approach and could invalidate evidence in scores of pending cases [1]. Google and other major technology companies face compliance obligations that hinge entirely on which way the Court rules, as they currently receive and process hundreds of such requests annually [2].
A decision is expected before the Court's term closes, typically in late June or early July [1]. If the Court holds the warrants unconstitutional as currently executed, Congress or the executive branch may face pressure to legislate a narrower framework that preserves some version of the investigative tool while addressing the overbreadth concerns several justices voiced during argument [1]. Defense attorneys in cases where geofence data supplied the evidentiary foundation are already monitoring the docket closely.