U.S. Supreme Court Rules Geofence Warrants Are Searches in Chatrie v. United States

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Monday that law enforcement’s use of a “geofence warrant” to obtain cellphone location data constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment, in the case Chatrie v. United States.

“The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the use of a “geofence warrant” to capture location data from cell phones in search of a robbery suspect constituted a search for Fourth Amendment purposes, a decision that means officers will have to obtain a warrant to access such data in the future”

CNN

In the Virginia bank robbery case involving Okello Chatrie, the court said police intrude on a constitutionally protected interest when they demand location information from a third-party tech company, even “for only a limited time.”

CNN

NBC News described the ruling as requiring officers to obtain a warrant when requesting location information from a geolocation database, while SCOTUSblog reported the justices sent Chatrie’s case back to a lower court to decide whether the search was “reasonable.”

The dispute centered on whether police could compel Google to provide location history data about devices near a crime scene without a warrant, and the Supreme Court’s majority emphasized that the Fourth Amendment must protect against unjustified government intrusion on privacy.

Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said “[a]n individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone’s location,” and that police intrude on that interest when they demand the information even from a third-party tech company.

In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito called the decision an “irresponsible escapade,” and he argued he would have found that no warrant is required.

Gizmodo

The Guardian reported that the majority opinion held that the sensitive data scooped up by “geofence warrants” counts as a Fourth Amendment search, and it said the court offered individuals a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” even if they may be in a public area.

CNN likewise described the ruling as requiring a warrant and said the Supreme Court did not resolve Chatrie’s case, instead sending it back for lower courts to assess whether the search was consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision did not end geofence warrant practice, because it vacated the Fourth Circuit’s ruling and remanded for further proceedings on whether the search was “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment.

“KEY CONTENT Legaltech News Reporting, and expert analysis of legal technology with a focus onwhat legal departments, law firms, and tech companies need to know Ranking The Am Law 100 Rankings The Am Law 100 is the definitive ranking of the 100 largest law firms in the United States”

Law

SCOTUSblog said the justices sent Okello Chatrie’s case back for the lower court to consider whether the search was “reasonable,” while NPR reported that Justice Elena Kagan sent the case back to determine whether the technique was “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment.

NPR described how Google initially found names of 19 people in or near the bank but ultimately provided names of just three people, and it said police later found a pistol matching one seen on security camera footage and nearly $100,000 in cash.

The stakes for future policing are tied to how warrants are justified and described, because the Supreme Court’s ruling requires a warrant for geofence location information while leaving the final assessment of particularity and probable cause to appellate review.