Supreme Court Signals Geofence Location Searches Likely Require Warrants
Summary
During arguments in Chatrie v. United States, justices signaled that police geofence searches likely require warrants, while raising concerns about warrants exposing thousands of users’ location data.
Key points
- The justices appeared likely to treat police geofence searches as Fourth Amendment searches requiring warrants; the court has not yet ruled.
- The government argued that geofence probes do not trigger Fourth Amendment protections.
- Justices raised concerns that broad geofence warrants can expose location data belonging to thousands of users.
- Google’s brief cited warrants covering multiple areas in San Francisco for more than 48 hours and another request involving more than 3,000 users.
- Police identified Okello Chatrie through a Google geofence search; he was convicted of bank robbery.
- The case revisits the Carpenter precedent on warrants for historical cell-site location information.
Article Details
- Event Type
- U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments in Chatrie v. United States concerning whether police geofence searches of location data require a warrant.
- Impact
- The justices appeared likely to require warrants for geofence searches, with concerns about warrants that expose location data from thousands of users. The case may lead to narrower limits on these searches but does not appear poised to ban them.
People
Adam UnikowskyChatrie's lawyer, who argued that geofence searches should be treated as general warrants banned by the Fourth Amendment.Andrew FergusonLaw professor quoted discussing the Court's focus on how particularized geofence warrants must be and the implications of requiring warrants.Neil GorsuchSupreme Court justice who questioned the government's position on whether police could obtain other data without a warrant.Okello ChatrieThe plaintiff in the case; police identified him through a Google geofence search, and the article reports that location data was used to convict him of bank robbery.Sonia SotomayorSupreme Court justice who questioned the government's position on whether police could obtain other data without a warrant.