Supreme Court to Hear Case on Geofence Warrants and Digital Privacy
Summary
The Supreme Court will hear Chatrie v. United States, a case challenging geofence warrants that collect location data across a time and area. The ruling could shape Fourth Amendment protections and courts’ use of the good-faith exception.
Key points
- Police used a geofence warrant to obtain Google data from a one-hour, 17.5-acre area in the investigation that led to Okello Chatrie’s 2019 bank-robbery conviction.
- A Virginia court found the warrant insufficiently specific and unsupported by probable cause for every user whose data was collected, but admitted the evidence under the good-faith exception.
- The Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of geofence warrants and may address how the good-faith exception applies.
- Civil-liberties advocates argue broad location-data searches threaten privacy; the government argues users disclosed location information to Google and cites the third-party doctrine.
- The article says lower courts are divided and notes the case may have implications for other remotely stored digital records.
- Google took no position on the warrant in Chatrie’s case but urged the Court to protect Google Location History and similar remotely stored records under the Fourth Amendment.
Article Details
- Event Type
- Supreme Court case examining whether geofence warrants that compel companies to disclose location data violate the Fourth Amendment.
- Impact
- The ruling could affect government access to bulk location data and privacy protections for Google Location History and other remotely stored digital records. No Supreme Court decision is reported; lower courts have reached differing conclusions, and a Virginia court found the warrant insufficiently specific but admitted the evidence under the good-faith exception.
People
Brent SkorupA legal fellow at the Cato Institute, which filed an amicus brief for the petitioner; he discussed the privacy implications of government access to digital records.John VillasenorA law professor and nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who commented on geofence warrants and the possible implications of the Supreme Court case.Okello ChatrieThe petitioner in Chatrie v. The United States; he was convicted after police used a geofence warrant to obtain Google location data relating to a one-hour, 17.5-acre period.