The Supreme Court is set to decide the fate of a powerful police surveillance tool that has turned every smartphone into a potential witness against its owner. On Monday, the justices heard oral arguments in Chatrie v. United States, a case challenging the legality of "geofence warrants"—broad requests that force tech companies to hand over location data for every device in a specific area at a specific time.
The case stems from a 2019 bank robbery in Richmond, Virginia. Investigators obtained a geofence warrant targeting Google, demanding location records for any phone near the bank around the time of the heist. The data led them to Okello Chatrie, who was later convicted. Chatrie argues the warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
"This is about whether the government can conduct a digital dragnet of innocent bystanders just to find one suspect," said Nathan Freed Wessler, a deputy director at the ACLU who argued for Chatrie. "The Fourth Amendment requires particularized suspicion, not a fishing expedition through everyone's private data."
Under a geofence warrant, police define a virtual perimeter—often just a few blocks—and demand companies like Google or Apple reveal the account information of every device inside that zone during a certain window. The result can be a list of hundreds or thousands of people who had no connection to the crime, essentially forcing them into the investigation through proximity alone.
The Justice Department defended the practice, arguing that such warrants are no different from traditional search warrants for a physical location. But critics say the scale is unprecedented: while a physical search might affect one building, a digital geofence can sweep up data from an entire city block.
During arguments, several justices appeared skeptical of the government's broad interpretation. Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether allowing geofence warrants would set a dangerous precedent, while Justice Neil Gorsuch pressed prosecutors on whether users have any reasonable expectation of privacy in their phone's location history.
A ruling is expected later this year. If the Court sides with Chatrie, it could fundamentally reshape how law enforcement can access digital location data, potentially forcing police to seek more targeted, narrower warrants or rely on other investigative methods.