The Supreme Court on Monday struggled to find consensus over how far police can go in using cell phone location data to identify suspects and witnesses.
The dispute centers on so-called “geofence search warrants,” which require companies like Google to scan their location databases and identify devices that were present within a defined area during a specific timeframe.
The case stemmed from the prosecution of Okello Chatrie, who was charged in a 2019 bank robbery in Midlothian, Virginia, after police used a geofence warrant served on Google to identify him. He later pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nearly 12 years in prison.
During oral arguments, the Trump administration defended the use of geofence warrants, arguing that because users voluntarily share their location data with companies like Google, they have relinquished control over that information.
Chief Justice John Roberts appeared skeptical of that view: “So to prevent surveillance of sensitive locations, you have to rely on the fact that people are going to turn off something that many, if not most people find is an important service?”
Roberts also pointed to the broader implications of the government’s position, asking, “What’s to prevent the government from using this to find out the identities of everybody at a particular church, a particular political organization?”
Roberts, who authored a 2018 ruling requiring warrants for less precise cell-site location data, expressed concern that the government’s position in the current case could enable far more detailed tracking using GPS-level data.
The case exposed a divide among the court’s conservative justices. Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared receptive to stronger privacy protections, while Justice Samuel Alito seemed more inclined to side with law enforcement.
Meanwhile, Google has argued that geofence search warrants violate the Fourth Amendment. Google received roughly 60,000 geofence requests from law enforcement between 2018 and 2020.
“We believe the Fourth Amendment is clear that a warrant is required before accessing an individual’s location history, ensuring digital records receive the same constitutional protections as physical ones,” Katelin Jabbari, a company spokesperson, said in a statement.
Tech industry groups including NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association have also urged the court to impose stronger safeguards on digital data access.
A Supreme Court ruling is expected by June.
