The Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in Chatrie v. United States, a case examining whether geofence warrants violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches.
"The warrant allowed Google to sift through hundreds of millions of accounts, constituting a dragnet search."
Case Background
The Incident
In 2018, an individual robbed a bank in Midlothian, Virginia, fleeing with approximately $195,000. After two months without leads, police obtained a warrant to search Google's database for users whose location history placed them near the bank during a specific time period.
The Warrant's Specifications
The warrant required Google to provide information on cellphone users who were within a 150-meter radius of the bank (roughly the size of three football fields) during a one-hour window after the robbery. This technique, known as geofencing, relies on Google's "Location History" feature, which records user positions on average every two minutes when enabled.
The Search Process
The warrant involved a three-step process:
- Google first provided anonymized data on 19 individuals
- Police then requested additional location data on nine of those individuals
- Google ultimately identified three individuals, including defendant Okello Chatrie
- The other two identified were innocent bystanders
- The warrant did not require judicial approval for the intermediate steps; Google decided which data to release
Legal Arguments
Defendant's Position
- Geofence warrants are akin to searching every home in a neighborhood to find one suspect, violating the ban on general warrants
- The warrant allowed Google to sift through hundreds of millions of accounts, constituting a dragnet search
- Allowing the government unfettered access to location data could similarly expose emails, photos, calendars, and other cloud data without a warrant
Government's Position
- Users voluntarily opt into Google's location history, thus waiving any reasonable expectation of privacy
- The warrant only searches Google's servers, not individuals' property
- Accessing photos, calendars, and email would require a warrant
- Geofence warrants are valid if they include "reasonable geographic and temporal limits"
Judicial Questions and Concerns
Privacy Boundaries
- Chief Justice John Roberts expressed skepticism about using the tool to identify attendees at a church or political organization
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that location data can reveal sensitive locations such as a brothel or cannabis dispensary
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether the government could track whether someone entered a specific bedroom
Legal Precedent
- Justice Samuel Alito argued that Carpenter v. United States (2018) may not apply because users can opt out of Google's location history, unlike the cell-site data in Carpenter which users cannot avoid disclosing
- Justice Neil Gorsuch raised concerns about the government's logic potentially extending to emails, photos, and calendars voluntarily shared with Google
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson indicated she did not object to obtaining anonymized data from 19 individuals but might require additional judicial oversight for later stages
Broader Context
Usage Statistics
Geofence warrants have been used in cases including the January 6 Capitol riot. In 2020, law enforcement served approximately 11,500 geofence warrants on Google, according to a law review article.
"The Court is expected to issue a decision by the end of the term, with observers suggesting the ruling may be narrow."
Industry Response
Google updated its policy in 2023, making it more challenging to comply with geofence warrant data requests. The federal government informed the Supreme Court that this policy change significantly reduces the future frequency of geofence warrant issues.
Procedural Status
The Court is expected to issue a decision by the end of the term. Observers suggest the ruling may be narrow, potentially maintaining existing privacy protections under Carpenter while requiring police to seek additional judicial approval for intermediate steps in geofence searches.