January 16, 2026
Supreme Court to rule on geofence warrants that collect cellphone location data for everyone near crime scenes
Police can sweep up location data on everyone near crime scenes
📜Constitutional Law🔒Digital Rights💡Technology
The Supreme Court granted certiorari on Jan. 16, 2026 in Chatrie v. United States (case number 25-112), agreeing to review two questions: whether the execution of a geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, and whether the exclusionary rule should apply to evidence derived from such warrants. The Court limited its review to the first question about constitutional violations. Oral arguments haven't been scheduled yet but will likely occur in the 2025-26 term.
Okello Chatrie was convicted of robbing Call Federal Credit Union in Midlothian, Virginia on May 22, 2019. Police couldn't identify the suspect from security footage or witness interviews. They obtained a geofence warrant served on Google that requested anonymized location data for every device within 150 meters of the bank within one hour of the robbery. After Google returned an initial list, law enforcement narrowed the search without seeking an additional warrant, eventually identifying Chatrie's phone as being at the scene.
Chatrie entered a conditional guilty plea after the district court denied his motion to suppress the evidence obtained via the geofence warrant. Judge M. Hannah Lauck ruled the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. Chatrie was sentenced to 141 months in prison (nearly 12 years) and three years of supervised release. His conditional plea preserved his right to appeal the suppression issue.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals initially ruled against Chatrie on Jul. 9, 2024 in United States v. Chatrie, 107 F.4th 319. The court held the warrant didn't violate the Fourth Amendment. Chatrie filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which the court granted on Nov. 1, 2024. The en banc court heard arguments on Jan. 30, 2025 and issued its decision on Apr. 30, 2025, upholding the warrant but with divided reasoning among the judges.
Geofence warrants have become an increasingly popular investigative tool for law enforcement. Unlike traditional warrants that target specific suspects, geofence warrants seek location data on every person within a specific geographic area over a certain time period. Police request this data from tech companies like Google that collect continuous location information from users who opt into services like Location History. The warrants create a digital dragnet that can sweep up data on dozens or hundreds of innocent people.
Chatrie's lawyers argued the warrant violated his Fourth Amendment privacy rights because it allowed authorities to gather location history on everyone near the bank without having any evidence they had anything to do with the robbery. This constitutes the kind of general, sweeping search that the Fourth Amendment was designed to prohibit. The warrant functioned like the general warrants that American colonists fought against, which allowed British soldiers to search homes without specifying what they were looking for.
Prosecutors argued Chatrie had no reasonable expectation of privacy because he voluntarily opted into Google's Location History feature. By choosing to use this service, he consented to Google collecting and storing his location data. The government also argued that even if the warrant was unconstitutional, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies because police relied on a warrant they believed was valid at the time.
Lower federal courts are deeply divided on geofence warrants. The Fifth Circuit ruled in United States v. Smith in Aug. 2024 that geofence warrants are unconstitutional, finding they violate the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement. The Fourth Circuit took the opposite position in Chatrie. This circuit split makes Supreme Court review more likely and necessary to establish a uniform national rule. Multiple civil liberties organizations filed amicus briefs, including the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
📜Constitutional Law🔒Digital Rights💡Technology
People, bills, and sources
Okello Chatrie
Criminal defendant and appellant
M. Hannah Lauck
U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia
Michael Price
Senior Litigation Counsel, Fourth Amendment Center at NACDL
What you can do
1
civic action
Submit amicus brief to Supreme Court supporting Fourth Amendment protections
File friend-of-the-court brief explaining how geofence warrants threaten privacy of innocent people swept up in digital dragnets. Supreme Court accepts amicus briefs from organizations and individuals with expertise.
Organizations can file amicus briefs supporting Fourth Amendment protections in Chatrie v. United States (case 25-112).\n\nKey points to include:\n- Geofence warrants sweep up location data on innocent people without probable cause\n- This violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on general warrants\n- The Fourth Circuit's decision conflicts with Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Smith\n- Technology enables surveillance previously impossible under traditional warrant requirements\n\nFiling requirements:\n- Briefs must follow Supreme Court Rule 37\n- File within 7 days of petitioner's brief on the merits\n- Obtain consent from parties or motion for leave to file\n\nOrganizations that typically file: ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, privacy advocacy groups, tech industry associations.\n\nAmicus briefs help the Court understand broader implications beyond the specific case.
2
practicing
Opt out of Google Location History to prevent future geofence surveillance
Disable Location History in Google account settings to stop Google from storing your continuous location data that can be turned over to law enforcement via geofence warrants.
3
civic action
Contact senators on Judiciary Committee about geofence warrant legislation
Demand Congress pass legislation requiring probable cause for each individual before collecting their location data, not just geographic area.
Hi, I'm calling to urge the Judiciary Committee to pass legislation restricting geofence warrants.\n\nKey points to mention:\n- The Supreme Court is reviewing Chatrie v. United States on geofence warrant constitutionality\n- These warrants sweep up location data on everyone near a crime scene without probable cause\n- Lower courts are divided - Fourth Circuit upheld them, Fifth Circuit struck them down\n- This threatens Fourth Amendment rights of innocent people\n\nQuestions to ask:\n- Will the committee hold hearings on geofence warrant legislation?\n- What safeguards will protect innocent people's location data?\n\nSpecific request: I want legislation requiring probable cause for each individual before law enforcement can collect their location data.\n\nThank you for your time.