Supreme Court to determine legality of geofence warrants
The Supreme Court will decide whether geofence warrants-orders to companies like Google for data on devices within a specified location and time-violate the Fourth Amendment. The justices granted review in Chatrie v.United States, a case arising from a bank robbery conviction after investigators used a geofence warrant; the court’s review is limited to whether the warrant’s execution constituted an unconstitutional search. Circuits are split: the Fifth Circuit generally found such warrants unconstitutional, while the Fourth Circuit concluded they are not searches. The Justice Department argues the warrants are lawful and notes Google has since changed its practices so the same data would not be available today; tech companies including X have urged review. The decision coudl broadly affect law enforcement’s use of this increasingly common investigatory tool; arguments may be heard in spring with a ruling possible by June.
Supreme Court to determine legality of geofence warrants
The Supreme Court announced Friday it will hear a case challenging the constitutionality of geofence warrants, as their usage in criminal investigations continues to expand.
The high court granted review in Chatrie v. United States, limiting the scope of the arguments to whether the execution of a geofence warrant violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The case involves a man who was convicted of robbing a bank after a geofence warrant was conducted.
A geofence warrant is a request issued to a technology company, in this case Google, for information about devices within a certain geographic location during a certain time period. The type of warrant has been used thousands of times by law enforcement, but in this case, Okello Chatrie’s lawyers claim its execution violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
Chatrie’s lawyers stressed in their petition to the high court that the “powerful law enforcement tool” raises concerns over Fourth Amendment rights, noting that “using a geofence warrant, law enforcement may request information regarding all people who were at a sensitive location—an abortion clinic, a protest, a political party’s convention—at a particular time.”
“Geofence warrants have been used to investigate crimes ranging from smashed windows to the storming of the Capitol,” the petition said.
The petition noted the split between federal appeals court circuits on the matter, with the Fifth Circuit finding the warrants generally unconstitutional, while the Fourth Circuit, where Chatrie’s case was appealed from, held the warrant was not considered a search under the law.
The Justice Department argued in its brief to the Supreme Court that it should reach the same conclusion as the Fourth Circuit that the warrant was not a “search” under the law and is therefore lawful. Solicitor General D. John Sauer also noted to the high court that Google changed its policy regarding geofence warrants and that the government would not be able to obtain the information it got about Chatrie today.
Chatrie’s petition received support from social media platform X, which filed a brief to the high court’s docket calling for the case to be reviewed.
The Supreme Court previously ruled that law enforcement must show probable cause to obtain cellphone tower data as part of an investigation, in its 2018 Carpenter v. United States ruling.
SUPREME COURT STILL TRUSTED TO MAKE THE RIGHT RULING DESPITE CONTENTIOUS CASES, POLL SHOWS
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Chatrie is expected to have wide ramifications for criminal investigations nationwide on the emerging law enforcement tool.
The high court could hear arguments in the case as soon as March or April, with a decision expected by the end of June if the justices hear the case this term.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
