The Supreme Court of the United States examines the legality of geolocation warrants in the context of criminal investigations

Automated translation by Reuters using machine learning and generative AI, please refer to the following disclaimer: [link]

“The “geofencing” tool allows for locating cell phones near a crime scene.

The debate pits privacy rights against a tool for fighting crime.

by John Kruzel

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Monday on whether law enforcement’s use of a “geofencing” warrant to retrieve data from cell phones near the scene of an armed robbery in Virginia violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting unreasonable searches.

Judges were considering an appeal filed by defendant Okello Chatrie, who pleaded conditionally guilty in 2022 to robbing a credit union in Midlothian, Virginia, reserving the right to seek suppression of evidence obtained following what he deemed an illegal search. The administration of President Donald Trump defends the investigative method that led to Chatrie’s nearly 12-year prison sentence for brandishing a firearm and fleeing with $195,000.

Warrants approved by the courts compel third-party companies – such as Google (Alphabet) in Chatrie’s case – to search for location data of mobile device customers near a crime scene. Investigators typically receive an anonymized list to start, which is then refined in a multi-step process that culminates in the company providing account holder information to law enforcement for potential leads on suspects.

The case argued Monday highlights tensions between an 18th-century constitutional provision guaranteeing “the right of citizens to the security of their person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” and digital age technologies transforming the way crimes are investigated.

In the Chatrie case, authorities had exhausted all other leads when they sought a geofencing warrant approved by the court, based on images showing the robber using a cell phone at the credit union. Google’s location data placed Chatrie at the crime scene, along with 18 other users, like him, who had activated the company’s “location history” feature and were within 492 feet of the credit union within an hour of the May 2019 robbery.

Further investigation into residences linked to Chatrie led authorities to discover what the government described as two “bank-note style ransom notes” in his room, a firearm, and over $100,000, some of it in bills wrapped in rubber bands signed by the credit union teller targeted in the robbery.

Chatrie’s attorneys argue in their briefs that geofencing amounts to a dragnet search exposing a massive amount of private information to the government and fails to meet the precision criteria required by the Fourth Amendment.

Justice Department lawyers countered that Chatrie’s activation of Google’s location history had waived any expectation of privacy in his data. Moreover, they argued, police had “reasonable cause” to believe Google had information that could help identify the thief, his accomplices, and witnesses.

Google, not part of the case, filed a brief advocating for a “rigorous application of the Fourth Amendment to the modern digital context.” The company stated it had challenged over 3,000 geofencing warrants for constitutional reasons and could no longer respond to such warrants since storing location history had shifted to users’ devices.

Previously, about one in three active Google users had activated the location history feature, totaling an estimated 500 million people, according to court documents.

District Judge Mary Lauck in Virginia deemed the geofencing warrant used in the Chatrie case violated the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches. However, she rejected his evidence-suppression request, finding that investigators had acted in good faith, believing their actions were legal.

The en banc Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond upheld Lauck’s ruling, prompting Chatrie to appeal to the Supreme Court justices.

In 2018, the Supreme Court placed limits on police’s ability to obtain mobile phone data pinpointing suspects’ past movements with precision, a win for digital privacy advocates and a setback for law enforcement authorities. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that police generally need a court-approved warrant to obtain such data, erecting a higher legal hurdle than previously existed under federal law.

In the Chatrie case, judges agreed to consider whether geofencing warrants are unconstitutional but refused to review his evidence-exclusion request. If Chatrie prevails on the constitutional issue, his case will likely be remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is expected toward the end of June.”