WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether rapidly evolving surveillance technology has outpaced traditional constitutional protections, hearing arguments in a case that could reshape Fourth Amendment privacy rights in the digital age.
The case stems from the armed robbery of the Call Federal Credit Union in Richmond, Virginia. After detectives reviewed security footage and interviewed witnesses but developed no leads, investigators turned to a geofence warrant, a tool that compels technology companies to provide anonymized location data from devices within a defined geographic area.
That data ultimately led to the identification and conviction of Okello T. Chatrie, now 31. But critics argue geofence warrants place the personal data of ordinary Americans at risk and violate constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.
During oral arguments, several justices wrestled with how longstanding privacy principles should apply to new technologies that make it easier for law enforcement to access vast amounts of information about a person’s movements and activities.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and Justice Sonia Sotomayor voiced concern about the government’s position on access to location data, comparing it to private information contained in emails, photographs and documents.
By contrast, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh appeared more focused on preserving investigative tools used by law enforcement.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett posed questions to both sides. Barrett suggested users who do not want their location tracked could simply disable those features. Roberts, however, raised broader concerns about potential abuse, asking what would prevent the government from using geofence warrants to identify everyone attending a church service or political gathering.
The arguments highlighted how deeply cellphones have become embedded in daily life. Justice Sotomayor noted that people carry their phones everywhere, even into the bathroom, underscoring the scope of data these devices generate.
The court last addressed a major cellphone privacy issue nearly a decade ago, ruling that law enforcement generally must obtain a warrant before collecting certain forms of location data. It has also limited the government’s use of GPS devices to track suspects’ movements.
In Chatrie’s case, the original warrant was broad. Critics argued it violated the Fourth Amendment because it lacked sufficient probable cause and effectively allowed investigators to search first and develop suspicions later.
Chatrie’s attorney argued that even if his client agreed to share data with Google, he did not consent to sharing it with the government. Government lawyers countered that, like bank or phone records held by third parties, individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in data voluntarily shared with a company.
Attorneys opposing geofence warrants warned of sweeping consequences. They argued the government could draw a geofence around a church, political rally or gun shop and compel records revealing who was present.
Although Google has stopped responding to geofence warrants, law enforcement agencies have sought similar data from other companies, including Apple, Lyft, Snapchat, Uber, Microsoft and Yahoo, ensuring the constitutional questions remain highly relevant.
A federal judge previously ruled the warrant in Chatrie’s case violated the Fourth Amendment but allowed the evidence because the officer who sought it acted in good faith. Chatrie later pleaded guilty and is serving a 12-year sentence.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the search on different grounds, ruling Chatrie did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy during the two-hour period covered by the warrant.
The Supreme Court’s eventual decision could determine whether digital-era surveillance tools remain broadly available to police or whether stricter constitutional limits will govern access to Americans’ location data.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
