The Supreme Court ruled Monday that law enforcement's use of a geofence warrant to obtain cellphone location data constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, handing a partial victory to a Virginia man convicted of bank robbery. The 6-3 decision, written by Justice Elena Kagan, sent the case of Okello Chatrie back to the Fourth Circuit for a determination on whether the warrant met constitutional standards for particularity and probable cause.
Chatrie, who is serving nearly 12 years for robbing a credit union in the Richmond suburbs in 2019, was identified through a geofence warrant—a type of reverse warrant that compels tech companies to turn over data from all devices within a specific area and time. Investigators used security camera footage showing the suspect using a cellphone to narrow a list of potential suspects from a 17.5-acre radius around the bank.
The ruling marks a significant shift in how courts treat digital location data. Justice Kagan wrote for the majority that A cell-phone user is not to be viewed as sharing private information with third parties—which then can be freely passed on to the government—just by doing the ordinary things cell-phone users do.
This reasoning rejects the government's argument that Chatrie voluntarily shared his location data with Google, thereby forfeiting any reasonable expectation of privacy.
During oral arguments in April, Deputy Solicitor General Eric Feigin had urged the Court not to transform the Fourth Amendment into an impregnable fortress around records of his public movements.
The majority was unpersuaded, instead emphasizing that routine cellphone use does not imply consent to warrantless government surveillance.
The decision aligns with the Court's broader trajectory on digital privacy, following its landmark 2018 ruling in Carpenter v. United States, which held that the government generally needs a warrant to access historical cell-site location data. In a separate case this term, the Court temporarily blocked the Trump administration's firing of a Federal Reserve governor, highlighting the justices' willingness to check executive power.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Amy Coney Barrett dissented, arguing that the majority's approach could hamper legitimate law enforcement investigations. The case now returns to the Fourth Circuit, which had previously upheld the warrant in a divided opinion.
The ruling narrows the scope of what cloud-stored data the federal government can obtain without a warrant tailored to an individual suspect. Legal experts say this could force police to rely on more traditional investigative methods—or seek more specific warrants—when tracking suspects through digital footprints.
In a related development, the Court also upheld states' rights to count mail ballots received after Election Day, underscoring its active role in shaping election law and privacy protections this term.
