WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that sweeping use of cellphone location data requires a warrant, applying constitutional protections to new technology in a case stemming from a Virginia bank robbery conviction.
The case centered on Okello Chatrie, who was convicted of robbing the Midlothian branch of Call Federal Credit Union in May 2019. Police linked him to the crime using cellphone location information law enforcement obtained from Google through a geofence warrant — a tool that allows authorities to obtain data showing cellphone users who were near a crime scene, even when not targeting a specific suspect.
Background
Chatrie entered the credit union branch while holding a cellphone and brandished a gun before fleeing with $195,000 in cash. After obtaining a judicially approved geofence warrant, police requested information from Google about users in the location at the time who had the "location history" function enabled on their phones.
The data revealed Chatrie was in or near the location approximately 10 minutes before the robbery and departed soon after. Google initially provided information about 19 users before a police officer narrowed the investigation further.
Chatrie pleaded guilty to federal charges of armed robbery and brandishing a firearm, receiving a sentence of nearly 12 years in prison. However, he reserved the right to appeal on Fourth Amendment grounds — specifically arguing the geofence warrant was too broad.
The Charges
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court found that broad geofence surveillance constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Writing for the majority, liberal Justice Elena Kagan emphasized the court's duty to guard against "undue encroachment" on constitutional rights. She warned that cellphone location-based searches give the government a "virtual panopticon with which to scrutinize its citizens' activities."
The court rejected the Trump administration's argument that no warrant is required at all, instead affirming that law enforcement must obtain judicial approval for geofence warrants. However, the justices stopped short of ruling on whether the specific warrant in Chatrie's case was legitimate, sending the matter back to a lower court for further review.
In dissent, conservative Justice Samuel Alito said he would have found no warrant is required, calling the majority's decision an "irresponsible escapade" the court should never have agreed to hear. He accused the justices of "striking a pose as a great champion of privacy in the digital age."
Privacy rights advocates have raised concerns about geofence warrants, arguing they constitute dragnet surveillance affecting not just suspects but anyone present at a location. They have warned such tools could be used to target disfavored political groups, including protesters.
Key Takeaways
- Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that broad geofence surveillance requires Fourth Amendment warrant protection
- Decision stems from Chatrie's conviction for the May 2019 robbery of Call Federal Credit Union in Midlothian, Virginia
- Police obtained location data from Google showing users near the crime scene with "location history" enabled
- Court rejected Trump administration argument that no warrant is needed for geofence data
- Justices sent case back to lower court without ruling on whether Chatrie's specific warrant was lawful
- Decision aligns with 2017 Supreme Court precedent requiring warrants for location information from cellphone towers
What's Next
The case returns to a lower court where Chatrie's legal team will argue the geofence warrant was impermissibly broad and violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The ruling establishes that future geofence investigations must obtain judicial approval, though courts have not yet defined the precise scope of such warrants.
Monday's decision marks the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings addressing how constitutional protections apply to emerging technology, following prior decisions on wiretaps, thermal imaging, and GPS tracking devices.