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 • 23 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.

Clive Robinson • January 27, 2026 5:25 PM

@ Scatman,

Watch out the anti DEI squad… They will be after you because,

“leave your phone at home if you are doing stuff The G does not like”

The Feds still call themselves G-Men even though there are about half as many who are of the “other genders”

So “Speak not and we will ask not” is the rule

As a well known singer once blues’d, in,

“it’s a mans mans world”

“This is a man’s world
This is a man’s world
But it wouldn’t be nothing
Nothing without a woman or a girl”

😉

Clive Robinson • January 27, 2026 8:47 PM

@ Bruce, ALL,

It looks very much like the FBI is using Geo&Fencing via Signal usage currently in Minnasota, from what it’s Director Kash Patel is implying, and further making claims that what is being said is not “protected free speech”,

The FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE, Patel says

…

“FBI Director Kash Patel said Monday that he had opened an investigation into the Signal group text chats that Minnesota residents are using to share information about federal immigration agents’ movements, launching a new front in the Trump administration’s conflict there with potential free speech implications.

Patel said in an interview with conservative podcaster Benny Johnson that he wanted to know whether any Minnesota residents had put federal agents “in harm’s way” with activities such as sharing agents’ license plate numbers and locations.

…

The investigation quickly drew skepticism from free speech advocates who said the First Amendment protects members of the public who share legally obtained information, such as the names of federal agents or where they are conducting enforcement operations.“

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/fbi-investigating-minnesota-signal-minneapolis-group-ice-patel-kash-rcna256041

I’ve not watched it but apparently the interview has been put up on YouTube at,

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MwG5jS0cL9E&t=260

(I’ve been told that “apparently” Kash Patel has a “Columbian Marching Powder habit” sniff… That can be seen in the video, so just a fun thing to watch out for 🙂

Clive Robinson • January 27, 2026 9:06 PM

@ Bruce, All,

I forgot to mention the irony / hypocrisy of Kash,

“Patel was the primary author of the Nunes memo, alleging that Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials abused their authority in the FBI investigation into links between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials.”

From Wikipedia.

Which also mentions his partner and when they met up… In the US the accepted age range for two people to “hook up” is

“A half plus nine years”

(Which puts both people at a minimum age of 18 years)

A quick calculation shows Patel was outside this accepted age range and still is… I’m led to believe that flouting this accepted age range is rather prevalent with politicians and GOP members as well.

lurker • January 27, 2026 10:30 PM

Re “anonymized” data, I think I’ve worked it out: Google told the cops these IMEIs were in that location, then the cops have to go to the telco and ask who owns/operates these phones. So it’s lazy journalism, or a zealous sub-editor trying to save space on the page. Don’t believe what you read in the papers, even one as classy as therecord.

KC • January 28, 2026 1:49 AM

@ lurker

You may find some of the info you are looking for at this link:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-112/368199/20250728142157250_USSC%20Petition%20for%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari.pdf

Google’s three-step process for handling geofence warrants, at that time, is summarized on page 9 and 10.

There are some more details about how this applied to Chatrie’s case on page 11 and 12:

(very lightly edited)

“At step one, the warrant called for de-identified information for all user accounts inside the geographical area from 4:20 pm to 5:20 pm. For step two, it expanded the time frame from 3:50 to 5:50 and lifted the geographic limits. And at step three, the warrant called for the accounts to be linked to specific, identifiable users […]

Google executed step one of the geofence and provided Detective Hylton with anonymized data for nineteen users caught within the geofence. Detective Hylton subsequently requested additional location data on nine users, which Google provided. Detective Hylton did not explain to Google why he chose these nine accounts, nor did he consult a magistrate. Finally, Detective Hylton requested that Google de-anonymize three of the numbers, again without explaining why or consulting a judge.“

From what I’m reading, and correct me if I’m wrong, Google has largely engineered themselves out of having this location data available for geofence warrant dragnet searches.

But other entities, I don’t know.

Mark Perew • January 28, 2026 2:40 AM

Let us imagine that I go into a shop, examine a few items, and then leave. Shortly after I leave a miscreant enters and commits a crime. There is no video. The police, in traditional fashion, dust for prints. My fingerprints are picked up because I did in fact touch items. And, because I have previously submitted to a Live Scan, my identity is quickly matched. I am innocent. But now I have been associated with a crime.

How does this substantively differ from having my cell phone information picked up in a geofence warrant?

TheSockMonkey • January 28, 2026 7:38 AM

@ Clive

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

Both in real life and on ”tv” it’s a good thing that criminals are not that bright and are not aware that there is a power off feature on their phone.

Montecarlo • January 28, 2026 8:32 AM

My understanding of this case is as follows, but I would invite anyone to correct or confirm it.

‘Probable cause’ is required for a police search, but is not defined in the Fourth Amendment. In this case, the police obtained a geofence warrant for the cell phone data, but did not obtain a warrant for the subsequent search of the suspect’s home. In their view, the geolocation data constituted probable cause and a follow up search warrant was not required. This interpretation is supported by a previous Fourth Circuit Court ruling.

The opposing argument, supported by a previous Fifth Circuit Court ruling, is that a search warrant issued by a Judge is required. If so, the evidence from the search was not obtained legally, and therefore should not have been admissible in court.

Whatever the outcome of this case, police will continue to use geolocation data to solve crimes. The only question is whether they need to obtain a warrant to conduct a search based on geolocation data.

Another question, is the degree private entities such as Google must cooperate with law enforcement. As the number of requests increases, it seems Google may have decided that retaining the geolocation data is more trouble than it is worth, and now deletes it after a defined period. I suspect they could recover the data if the government were to provide relief on future anti-trust cases.

Clive Robinson • January 28, 2026 9:15 AM

@ TheSockMonkey,

Hmm I hope you are alive and well.

With regards,

“Both in real life and on ”tv” it’s a good thing that criminals are not that bright and are not aware that there is a power off feature on their phone.”

First off there are quite a few “bright” criminals mainly women at level two “house breaking and lower level financial fraud” crime levels and even at much higher levels that make many “organised crime gags look ‘pony'”. The reason they only very occasionally come into view is because they know about patterns and act like Chameleons or Cephalopods in their MO and people they work with but don’t have contact with.

Generally it’s only when they become “arrogant and overconfident” that they come under an official spot light…

So they don’t get into the crime stats or conviction records. What also makes it easy for them to stay out of sight is the Police use the likes of the Ried Technique to make innocent people guilty, and the “taking into consideration” whereby you take credit for crimes you’ve not taken to get a shorter sentence.

Yeh the logic is screwy but yup you admit to 50 crimes you’ve not commited but the police have open on their books, and you get considerable consideration on the crime you have done, and the police get a nice big clear up rate…

So you don’t get to see the Chameleons as their crimes are closed by other people taking credit and getting way less time…

They also operate through “fall guy” “cut outs” you’ve heard of “mules” well they take on all the risk for next to none of the reward but for various reasons specially in the USA they will do it to keep their nose out of the water that would otherwise drown them (‘Hey, it’s the American Way’, from the false hope of the ‘American Dream’…)

But moving on, on most phones the “power off” is only software, and the use of faraday bags imperfect, and they both show up on “connection records” as aberrant behaviour which has and is continuing to be used as “circumstantial evidence” but can be swung to “primary evidence” if prosecutors just push it a little against public defenders…

As I’ve advised before “make patterns work for you” putting your phone on charge and locking it in your desk draw every lunch time gives you your lunch time free from the boss and others, just make sure it’s “your own phone” not the bosses. Before C19 going into underground transport used to be another way as it would be reasonable to “turn it off to save battery”. But due to ticket readers and CCTV with face recognition and following, that’s nolonger a good idea. But worse all the newer smart device OS’s have Bluetooth LE beaconing built in it just needs something “hung off the API hooks”. Some smart devices though off keep location services via GPS and WiFi receive still functioning thus track your movements.

But also do not forget iTags and Tiles and similar on your person they all track you via BLE beaconing. At one time to get lower health insurance rates employers used to make staff wear FitBits and equivalent all the time.

So develop “bath habits” where you take them off and sometimes leave every thing including your keys on the bed or bathroom chair etc.

Have a compleat change of cloths you’ve microwaved and spare keys without trackers to go out for a walk in, and take cash not cards (they will track you and can be converted to CCTV surveillance footage fairly trivially. And do walks like that often so it becomes a “known habit” but always change your route randomly for “safety” it’s standard advice for VIPs and for OpSec. Oh and wear non leather gloves in case you “fall over” after all you do land on your hands and you “want to protect them” from the ground and what’s on it, and other things you might inadvertantly touch. Also carry “slip over crime scene style booties, after all you don’t want to “traose dog shite etc” back in doors”

But as importantly also change randomly from walking to running to cycling and “Keep your eyes open” for ring door bells and other surveillance systems. It’s getting harder and harder but you can usually find a “route out” of a city/urban/suburban municipal and or corporate “surveillance cage”.

Like the old advice has it,

“It ain’t what you do, but the way that you do it!”.

But boogying along ain’t as simple as it once was. But if you are fit as I once was, slipping away to do a twenty mile “night hike in the countryside” generally,

“Gets you away from it all”…

As does cycling on a folding bike and back pack or electric scooter / hover-board, though many places are trying to make their use illegal. Because though slow collectively “plod” and the rest of the “guard labour” are kind of brighter than the average crimbo they just need time to ruminate.

Oh two last things to remember, from advice I’ve given in the past about “One Time Pad Use”

1, Paper especially rice / cigarette paper and what’s on it burns easily and dissolves or can be chewed and swallowed easily.
2, If you write on just one page at a time on a glass surface using a B4 or similar pencil, it leaves no impression and a wipe down with a lense cloth removes trace and static patterns.

Have fun!

kiwano • January 28, 2026 5:43 PM

@lurker

While I suppose it’s conceivable that the other potential suspect may have been searched first (yes I used the singular there, because I’m making the bold assumption that of the 3 people identified in the geofence, one of them was the victim of the robbery, leaving only 2 as potential suspects), I’d fully expect that somewhere between “identify potential suspects with a geofence” and “get a search warrant on the suspect’s house”, there ought to be a sanity-checking step on the potential suspects. Y’know things like “the victim identified the robber as male, but this phone is associated with a female subscriber” or “this suspect looks like a heavy black man in his driver’s license photo, but the video footage and victim description both indicate a thin white robber”.

I think that it’s a good thing that a challenge like this is going to be heard by the Supreme Court, and would fully expect a ruling that will provide standards of acceptability for the use of geofence warrants, rather than declaring that the use of geofence warrants is uniformly (un)constitutional.
One of the reasons that I have this hunch, is how my initial reaction was that three phones identified by the geofence seemed an appropriately small number, and further that the initial identification of those phones was anonymized.

It sounds like the police department and Google were already following some sort of protocol to minimize the amount of data gathered in the investigation. I’d also guess that such a protocol had been implemented to minimize the chances that the searches involved be determined to be unreasonable. I’d also guess that the cops and lawyers who established that protocol are at least a little excited to see how their work in that area will stand up to scrutiny from the Supreme Court.

The other Bob • January 28, 2026 10:38 PM

Some great discussions so far in the comments. Two things that I think this court decision should make us consider that have yet to be addressed and I think are vital to truly understanding how bad geo-fence “warrants” really are.

Historically, a warrant cannot be given to “search every single home in an appartment complex” because that is an obvious breach of many innocents and is “throwing the net too wide” as it were. One used to have to have a warrant (and a good reason) to search one house. But here, we see a warrant, that is signed by a judge (at least for the first instance as KC points out) to allow something very similar; a wide net to catch as many fishes as possible.[1]
The claim that the information was “anonymized” is blatantly false in every sense of the word and meaning. Especially when the detective can simply ask for 3 phones to be de-anonymized?!? Granted, I expected nothing less from Google, but i have no doubt any other provider will also claim that your data is “anonymized” while on page 238/17654 of the EULA they clarify that “anonymized” really means “logged and tracked to your name, home address, and current and past locations”.
Also, who were those other 2 people who had their information carted on a golden platter to the detective withput their consent or evidence of being related to the crime? That should also be considered when calling this unconstitutional. Imagine if a cop pulls over a vehicle with stolen plates, but has the authority to stop the cars before and after it, and search their cars as well…

I doubt Google will catch any flack for this, and detectives all across the US will continue to use this dubious-at-best route without fear of reprocutions. Feels like we should find out if it is morally and legally acceptable first before letting police use it.

[1] why this type of thing is done by PD is kind of clear when you see it from the perspective of trying to save time and man-hours. The police don’t technically want to ruin your privacy, it just simply is the easiest and quickest path to get what they want.

The other Bob • January 28, 2026 10:40 PM

Looks like I messed up the formatting and bolded half the message instead of a single word… Oh well. Point is still the same 🙂

Clive Robinson • January 29, 2026 1:13 AM

@ The other Bob, ALL,

You have a side note that contains,

“The police don’t technically want to ruin your privacy, it just simply is the easiest and quickest path to get what they want.”

You are talking about “perception” not reality. Look up “canteen mentality” with regards the UK Met Police, and well the news about behaviours of ICE and the FBI all over the US. The “grunts, knuckle draggers, authoritarian follower, and Walter Mitty types” that form front line “guard labour” of all flavours because they are attracted to the “Swagger” will be a surprise to some that have quaint notions about them from not having had contact with them.

As I’ve mentioned in the past I used to be in a shooting team that had contact with police shooting teams. Lets just say I was not at all impressed with what I saw, in fact it was scary because it carried through to the weapons handling. But worse the shooting of “Jean Charles de Menezes” on the London Underground back just over a decade ago should have revealed that this “mentally aberrant behaviour” was at all ranks including that of the “Gold Commander” who later became the Met Police Chief Commissioner, who clearly showed her aberrance all along her career path, but especially when she was required to leave her position for quite justifiable reasons she kind of pointed out she was in effect “behind the guns”…

Clive Robinson • January 29, 2026 8:45 AM

@ Kiwano,

With regards,

“I used the singular there, because I’m making the bold assumption that of the 3 people identified in the geofence, one of them was the victim of the robbery, leaving only 2 as potential suspects)”

Why would the victim be included?

My assumption would be that she was the point refrence or center of the “Circular Error Probable”(CEP)[1].

[1] The Circular Error Probable is most often heard about in ballistic terminal accuracy. Basically it measures how far off from the aim point the weapon lands. so is a measure of the weapon’s precision over a range of test firings. But it can measure average accuracy of any system especially those that radiate out from a point.

So I’m assuming where the victim was would be the point of aim zero at the time of the attack and a range given by those who make the “access request”.

For instance back in 2000 early one morning I was subjected to a nasty attack. I can still tell you to the inch exactly where I was standing and where and how the attacker approached me. Even though it’s now more than a quarter century ago.

There were something like 200 witnesses on their way to College and 14 of them came forward with the attackers name. Because I had not seen the attacker approach I could not identify them. So… The police just “kicked it away” and the guy who everyone saw karate kick my head into the street sign got to go home a few hours later, whilst I got shipped to one hospital then to another and nearly died of “Hospital neglect”[1] (basically I was “nil by mouth” and I kept getting bumped down the surgery list as I was “stable” and not a nuisance… So every one kind of forgot you tend to die if you don’t get fluid for more than 72 hours[2]…

Something to remember if you ever have the misfortune to end up in a similar situation.

But I did end up getting a girlfriend and son as a direct consequence so…

[1] It’s one of the things they used to teach “battle field medics” (which was just one of many trades I had whilst wearing the green”).

Basically throughout recorded history, neglect has killed more soldiers than enemy action and why Florence Nightingale is still remembered quite incorrectly for what she did relating to the deaths of soldiers during the crimean war and afterwards (basically she made little difference to the death toll that was Mary Seacoal who is now mostly unknown).

But Florence’s data collection and presenting of statistics visually, caused a major sea state change in politicians and senior military personnel, much to the annoyance of the “Medical Men” of the time most of whom did not even wash there hands).

[2] I was into the start of day five on the clock from when I’d last had any fluids, so I went to the nurses to ask for fluids yet again and they gave me the brush off yet again…

So I was a little more blunt than I would normally be, and told them I was going whilst I was still sufficiently alive to get out the door. They realised I was serious and started babbling about forms had to be filled out and I bluntly said I was not interested as I needed fluids and I was going to go get them… Whilst I was getting dressed they must have made a couple of panicked phone calls because I was lacing my boots when one of the Drs appeared in scrubs and simply asked “Why?” So I told him and he looked shocked… And wrote me up immediately for a drip and stuck it in me himself. Then said I could have a jug of water and he’d get “protien food” sent up from the pharmacy (strange as it might seam it’s the same stuff “body builders” live off but for ordinary mortals in the made up form as a drink back then it was prescription only). So after that it was “sit there and wait” which for someone who was highly active normally was like torture. Also although I did not know it I was “pre-diabetic” and I used to get real cranky when my blood sugar was too low, and thumping head aches and thirst when it was to high. It’s one of those oddities that although you can look and are fit and well by most measures, being highly active we now know requires a change in your diet from the norm only the “nutritionists back then” just worked with formulaic advice based on BMI… Which should never be used with athletes as it will cause them to become not just ill but develop heart problems and metabolic issues that result in auto-immune disorders (of which T2DM is just one).

Givon • February 1, 2026 3:41 PM

If probable cause is the standard, then, close proximity does make you a possible suspect. Assuming your phone wasn’t stolen or lost. How is that a constitutional violation? If someone said, they had seen this person close to the event, while watching with his bird viewing telescope, wouldn’t that be a tip the cops have to investigate?

The question as raised, were the other 2 suspects also searched, stands. They too were probable suspects.

Clive Robinson • February 1, 2026 8:28 PM

@ Givon, ALL,

With regards,

“If someone said, they had seen this person close to the event, while watching with his bird viewing telescope, wouldn’t that be a tip the cops have to investigate?”

Simple answer is “NO” there is no requirement to do so, they just “log it”. But also they probably won’t anyway because “eye witnesses that come forward” are at best “unreliable” and many are regarded as “fantasists” after their “15 mins of fame” at the expense of “Wasting Police time”.

Most Police officers likewise regard the results of “door step canvasing” to be a waste of time as well.

The Police and other “guard labour” want to “take the human out of the loop” that is they want actual facts that can be presented in a way that will not be argued with (it’s why the notion of fake or “parallel construction” is used to cover up various “methods” or “sources”).

But look on it this way,

1, Making a request to a member of the public or a company / corporation is the “first step” of a search.
2, Doing so without a warrant is trending on questionable ground.
3, Doing so with what is in effect “force” makes it very definitely a search that requires judicial oversight.
4, Police saying it’s “Exigent circumstances” is very rarely true, but nobody appears to call them on it.

The judiciary should be more mindful that they hold “public trust” to keep “Guard Labour” under restraint.

Look at it this way, if a police officer asks for a warrant to exhume every body in a grave yard looking for signs Dr’s had given leathal doses of drugs, do you think a judge should grant it?

How about Texas using Flock camera searches out of jurisdiction to find women visiting “Family planing clinics” in states where they not only still allow abortions but have “shield laws” to protect women from such behaviours?

Schneier on Security

The Constitutionality of Geofence Warrants

Comments

Leave a comment Cancel reply