Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Geofence Warrants: A Landmark Digital Privacy Case
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Monday regarding the constitutionality of geofence warrants, a law enforcement technique that requires technology companies to search their databases for users present near a crime scene during a specific timeframe. The case, Chatrie v. United States, stems from a 2018 bank robbery in Midlothian, Virginia.
Case Background
In 2019, police investigated an unsolved bank robbery where a suspect fled with approximately $195,000. After two months without identifying a suspect, law enforcement obtained a geofence warrant.
According to court documents, the warrant required Google to provide information on cellphone users who were within a 150-meter radius (approximately three football fields) of the bank during a one-hour window before and after the robbery. 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 users
- Google identified three individuals, including defendant Okello Chatrie
The warrant did not require judicial approval for the intermediate steps.
Legal Questions
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches without a warrant based on probable cause. The court must determine:
- Whether geofence warrants are inherently unreasonable, constituting a "general warrant" prohibited at the Founding
- Whether users waive privacy rights by voluntarily opting into location services like Google's Location History
The case follows the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Carpenter v. United States, which held that police generally need a warrant to access historical cell-site location data. Chief Justice John Roberts was in the majority for that decision, while Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
Arguments Presented
Defendant's Position
Lawyer Adam Unikowsky argued that geofence warrants are akin to searching every home in a neighborhood to find one suspect, violating the ban on general warrants. He stated that allowing the government unfettered access to location data could similarly expose emails, photos, calendars, and other cloud data without a warrant.
Government's Position
Deputy Solicitor General Eric Feigin argued that users who voluntarily enable location history on their phones do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for that data. He maintained that there is no categorical protection for locations such as churches or political organizations. Feigin conceded that accessing photos, calendars, and email would require a warrant.
Judicial Questions and Comments
Chief Justice John Roberts expressed skepticism about using geofence warrants to identify attendees at a church or political organization, noting concern that the government's position could allow tracking of individuals at religious services or political meetings.
Justice Samuel Alito argued that Carpenter 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 that the government's logic could extend to emails, photos, and calendars voluntarily shared with Google.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the reasonable expectation of privacy from the user's perspective and expressed discomfort with the idea that the government could track whether someone entered a specific bedroom.
Justice Elena Kagan pressed the government on where the line should be drawn regarding geofence warrants.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that location data can reveal sensitive locations such as a brothel or cannabis shop.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson indicated that she did not object to obtaining anonymized data from 19 individuals but suggested that additional judicial oversight might be required for later stages.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that geofence warrants are valid if they include "reasonable geographic and temporal limits" and appeared more aligned with the government's position.
Broader Context and Implications
Geofence warrants have been used in various investigations, including the January 6 Capitol riot. According to a law review article, law enforcement served approximately 11,500 geofence warrants on Google in 2020.
Google, a primary recipient of such warrants, updated its policy last year, making it more challenging to comply with these data requests. The federal government informed the Supreme Court that this policy change significantly reduces the future frequency of geofence warrant issues, suggesting the case may be moot.
Lower courts have issued differing opinions on whether this practice violates the Fourth Amendment.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision by summer, which may set precedent for digital privacy in an era where data is stored by third parties.