Supreme Court Weighs Warrants Tied to Phone Location Data (1)

The US Supreme Court appeared wary of issuing a sweeping decision on how a law enforcement technique leveraging the digital footprint of mobile phone users squares with the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Hearing arguments on Monday, the justices struggled with the question of whether a geofence warrant that compelled Alphabet Inc.’s Google to share certain geographic mobile data maintained through a location history feature is an unlawful search.

Many of the justices across the ideological spectrum ran through hypotheticals analogizing such a process to a traditional physical search of a hotel or storage locker. Whether access to location history also implicates email, photos, or calendars also represented a consistent theme.

“I’m struggling to decide how to think about this case,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, noting the property and privacy interests it implicates.

Okello Chatrie was convicted of robbing a credit union in Virginia in 2019. Prosecutors brought an indictment against Chatrie after police identified him through a warrant that compelled Google to disclose certain location data, initially anonymized, within a geographic boundary and within a certain timeframe.

Chatrie claims the search violated his reasonable expectation of privacy and his property interest in using a password-protected device.

Deputy US Solicitor General Eric Feigin countered that Chatrie voluntarily shared his location history with Google and that he lacked any expectation of privacy in his public movements under the Fourth Amendment.

Some of the justices voiced concerns with what they called maximalist positions offered by the government and Chatrie. They appeared instead open to a ruling that delves into the parameters for geofence searches.

“There is value in our setting the parameters of this process, isn’t there,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

A decision, expected by July, could be significant because of the ubiquity of smartphones and the use of increasingly sophisticated technologies by law enforcement

But Justice Samuel Alito questioned why the court heard the case.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit declined to suppress evidence from the geofence warrant under a good-faith exception. Google also no longer is able to comply with such warrant requests because of a change in its data storage policies.

“What you’re asking for is an advisory opinion,” he argued, prompting Chatrie’s lawyer, Adam Unikowksy, to argue the case goes beyond Google.

“Lots of providers store data,” he said. “I think a lot of people think that this case will have implications beyond these particular facts.”

Three-Step Warrant

Geofence warrants are commonly sought by law enforcement. In a friend-of-the-court brief, Google noted that it’s received thousands of them, many of which the company objected to on grounds of being overbroad.

A Virginia police department sought one in an investigation of an armed bank robbery. Video footage showed the alleged thief on his cellphone, and investigators successfully got a court-approved warrant compelling Google to provide a list of anonymized accounts whose location was logged within a 150-meter radius around the bank during a one-hour time block.

Following that step, which identified 19 anonymous users within the geofence, the officers requested and received additional information on the locations of nine yet-to-be identified users. The final step involved Google revealing the identities of three users, one of whom was Chatrie.

Chatrie’s lawyer argued such a process would sweep up millions of innocent bystanders while lacking probable cause . Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared skeptical of the first step failing the constitutional test since it’s designed to search the surrounding area of a crime.

“It’s a search of one place,” Kavanaugh said, before commending the police’s work. “I’m trying to figure out how this was bad police work.”

Fourth Amendment

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether Chatrie lost an expectation of privacy by enabling his location history settings. But he also sounded concerned about preventing surveillance of locations such as a church or political rally by relying on people to turn off what many find to be an “important service.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch followed up by noting the government’s answers to the question would have to be that this investigative procedure isn’t a search for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. “That has to be your answer,” he said.”

Gorsuch, Barrett and Sotomayor were among those to press whether the government’s position on publicly visible movements would extend to private residences.

A key question hovering over over arguments was whether the geofence warrant represents a search under the Constitution, which protects people “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Gorsuch raised whether the justices bypass that question and consider the specifics of the warrant.

But Kavanaugh asked the government whether there were any practical problems from the court saying a warrant is necessary. Feigin admitted the government hasn’t had problems getting the warrants they need, but argued the issue would come down to any boundaries the court draws for seeking them.

As of July 2025, Google deleted or migrated history data previously stored on its servers to users’ devices. That means Google can no longer respond to geofence warrants, the company said in its brief.

The case is: Chatrie v. United States, U.S., 25-112, argued, 4/27/2025.