The Constitutionality of Geofence Warrants

The US Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of geofence warrants.

The case centers on the trial of Okello Chatrie, a Virginia man who pleaded guilty to a 2019 robbery outside of Richmond and was sentenced to almost 12 years in prison for stealing $195,000 at gunpoint.

Police probing the crime found security camera footage showing a man on a cell phone near the credit union that was robbed and asked Google to produce anonymized location data near the robbery site so they could determine who committed the crime. They did so, providing police with subscriber data for three people, one of whom was Chatrie. Police then searched Chatrie’s home and allegedly surfaced a gun, almost $100,000 in cash and incriminating notes.

Chatrie’s appeal challenges the constitutionality of geofence warrants, arguing that they violate individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights protecting against unreasonable searches.

Tags: courts, national security policy, searches

Posted on January 27, 2026 at 7:01 AM • 7 Comments

Comments

Clive Robinson • January 27, 2026 8:27 AM

@ ALL,

I believe the expression is,

“If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime!”

What this appeal can not remove is,

“Police then searched Chatrie’s home and allegedly surfaced a gun, almost $100,000 in cash and incriminating notes.”

Most other English Law jurisdictions would not give an appeal unless Chatrie could give a reasonable excuse for not knowing about those items.

That however does not in any way make an excuse for the geo-fence warrant. Which can stigmatise people and put them at a disadvantage for a long time.

In the UK in Wales a local politician’s car was observed once or twice a week close to a known “house of ill repute”. Nothing was said or done about it untill he applied to join a policing committee and the police raised objections on this historic record of what they assumed was the politician visiting the “knocking shop”. When the politician finally got answers he pointed out that his sister lived in a house a few doors down and that he was visiting her for dinner and other non public social life with family (normally a wise thing to do if you are a politician as journalist love to spin up tales against local politicians).

So yes I’m aware that just being in an area can cast suspicion on you, and the way the police work is well shall we say to not carry out the requirement to investigate both ways, that is to be impartial and check facts and supposed evidence.

In the US if international agency reports are to be believed US police just look for someone “obviously guilty” then “make them guilty” in various ways (look up Reid Techniques that other Western Countries have either dropped or never used because they encourage significant injustice,

https://www.open.edu/openlearn/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=142140&section=3.4 ).

Rontea • January 27, 2026 11:24 AM

Geofence warrants raise serious constitutional concerns because they can potentially violate the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Unlike traditional warrants that target a specific individual or location based on probable cause, geofence warrants sweep up data from all devices in a defined area, affecting countless innocent people. This dragnet approach risks creating a surveillance tool that circumvents the core principles of privacy. While law enforcement argues that location data shared with tech companies falls under the third-party doctrine, the sheer scope and sensitivity of modern digital data suggest that the courts may need to reevaluate privacy expectations in the digital age.

lurker • January 27, 2026 12:11 PM

It must be too early in the morning, I’m having trouble parsing this [emphasis added]:

… asked Google to produce anonymized location data near the robbery site so they could determine who committed the crime. They did so, providing police with subscriber data for three people,

Also we are not told if Chatrie was the first of the three to be searched, but if not, then the others might have been subject to “unreasonable search”?

Commenter • January 27, 2026 1:28 PM

@lurker

“anonymized” data in this context likely means that Google removed reference to a specific name, account or advertising ID, while keeping any and all sensitive data that could actually be used to infer the identity of the user. For example censoring the name on an ID card while keeping the number, height, race, sex & address plainly visible.

Also we are not told if Chatrie was the first of the three to be searched, but if not, then the others might have been subject to “unreasonable search”?

Likely yes, if they didn’t find anything incriminating in their first search, they almost surely would have kept searching every identity on their list until they found something.

KC • January 27, 2026 1:44 PM

“… a ruling would be relevant for other tech companies that have not moved to encrypt their data. Law enforcement also can still issue Google geofence warrants for cases originating prior to December 2023, when the company changed its policy to only store location data for three months.”

If anyone is storing accessible location data, I’d assume a ruling on geofence warrants will be highly relevant. It will be interesting if this will bear any impact on purchased data.

“A ruling is expected by early July.”

scatman • January 27, 2026 2:40 PM

@Clive Robinson

the expression is actually

“If you can’t do the time, get a de-Googled phone”

…or leave your phone at home if you are doing stuff The G does not like

Bill Smith • January 27, 2026 3:27 PM

The accused might object to being identified because of jailtime risk. However, everyone other than the accused has an actual objection to being searched (geolocated) without cause.

Schneier on Security

The Constitutionality of Geofence Warrants

Comments

Leave a comment Cancel reply