Okello Chatrie robbed a credit union in Midlothian, Virginia, in 2019. He wore a mask and gloves. Police had no leads. Then they turned to Google.
A geofence warrant compelled the tech giant to hand over location data for any device within 150 meters of the bank around the time of the heist. Google’s Location History feature—opted in by users—pinpointed Chatrie’s phone. Officers searched his home. They found cash, a gun, demand notes. Chatrie confessed. He pleaded guilty but challenged the warrant on appeal, arguing it violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court heard arguments on April 27, 2026, in Chatrie v. United States.
Geofence warrants emerged after the 2018 Carpenter v. United States ruling. There, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a 5-4 majority that police need warrants for seven or more days of cell-site location information, or CSLI. Phones ping towers constantly. Those pings reveal movements. But Carpenter left gaps. It didn’t address geofences—virtual perimeters drawn around crime scenes to capture data on unknown devices. Nor did it settle short-term data grabs or third-party disclosures like Google’s.
Chatrie’s fence covered 17.5 acres. It included a church. Nineteen devices pinged inside. Innocents swept up. Police narrowed the list in steps: Google provided anonymized data first (Step One), then accounts (Step Two), finally names (Step Three). Chatrie says this reverse search—targeting places, not people—acts like a general warrant, banned since colonial times. No probable cause for each person. Just proximity.
The government disagrees. Users share data voluntarily with Google. Third-party doctrine applies—no privacy expectation. The warrant was particular: time, place, probable cause for the robbery. A magistrate approved it. SCOTUSblog notes Chatrie counters that location data isn’t mere business records. It reveals visits to doctors, protests, lovers. Sensitive. Property interest too—users own it until shared.
Justices Grill Both Sides in Scrambled Lines
Two hours of arguments scrambled ideologies. Justice Neil Gorsuch, conservative, joined liberal Sonia Sotomayor in pressing the DOJ lawyer. “What are the restraints that are going to prevent that from becoming a problem?” Chief Justice Roberts asked, imagining fences around churches or rallies. CNN reports he targeted both sides.
Justice Elena Kagan worried about scale. Thousands ensnared? Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned Google’s role—executing the search for police. Does that make it a government act? Sotomayor called location history “the functional equivalent of reading everyone’s diary.” Gorsuch invoked general warrants: fishing expeditions on innocents. The New York Times says the court seemed unlikely to ban geofences outright. But limits? Likely.
DOJ argued no “search” occurred until police viewed identifiable data. Narrow steps minimized overreach. Chatrie’s counsel, Jeffrey Unikowski, pushed back: Google searched first, revealing private associations. Proximity alone? Not enough. NPR calls it ingenious—or Orwellian.
Circuit split drove certiorari. Fifth Circuit in United States v. Smith deemed geofences inherently overbroad. Fourth Circuit split 7-7 in Chatrie’s case; panel upheld via good-faith exception. Supreme Court took the Fourth Amendment question January 16, 2026. Constitution Center.
Stakes Beyond Robberies: Broader Surveillance Fears
Geofences exploded post-Carpenter. Google got 9,000 in 2019 alone, per district court. Used in murders, arsons, January 6 probes. But Google’s 2023 policy shift stores data on devices, cuts retention. Still, warrants persist. Politico sees conservatives divided; majority may require warrants but set bounds.
Implications ripple. Reverse keyword warrants—Google searches for phrases like ‘abortion pills’—loom. Fences around protests? Clinics? Reuters (link) pits privacy against crime-solving. Amici from EPIC urge particularized probable cause. EPIC. Local governments defend: solves cold cases.
Ruling by June 2025? No—2026 term ends summer. Narrow win for government seems probable. But Roberts’s questions hint at curbs: tighter fences, fewer steps, real probable cause per target. Or remand for facts.
Tech tracks constantly. Phones betray. Fourth Amendment adapts—or erodes. Chatrie forces the choice. Police solve crimes faster. Citizens lose shadows. Balance tips on nine justices’ words.
And if they uphold? Data brokers thrive. Warrants multiply. Turn off Location History. But apps demand it. Opt out everywhere? Impossible. So the fight continues—in courts, Congress, code.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication