The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on July 1 that police must obtain a judicial warrant before accessing an individual’s location data held by a third-party tech company, limiting how law enforcement can use geofence warrants in digital investigations, according to El Diario.
The ruling came in Chatrie v. United States, a case rooted in a 2019 bank robbery in Midlothian, Virginia. On May 19, 2019, local police reviewed security footage and spotted the suspect, Okello Chatrie, near the bank while on a phone call. Unable to identify him right away, the Midlothian Police Department obtained a geofence warrant directed at Google, a court order that compels tech companies to produce location data for every device within a defined geographic area during a specific time window.
Officers first collected anonymous location data from every device within 150 meters of the bank over a one-hour window, according to El Diario. They then narrowed their list and requested a second dataset tracking those devices’ movements across a two-hour period. Google ultimately provided names and identifying information. The data showed Chatrie had entered the geofence area roughly ten minutes before the robbery and then moved quickly toward a nearby neighborhood. He was later charged with robbery and firearm-related offenses.
Chatrie filed a motion to suppress the Google data, arguing the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed.
In the majority opinion, Justice Kagan wrote that each person holds “a reasonable expectation regarding the location information on their mobile phone” and that officers “carried out a Fourth Amendment search” when they acquired Chatrie’s data through Google, according to El Diario. The court held that a suspect’s guilt or criminal status cannot diminish those protections. “A search is not legalized by what is discovered in it,” Kagan wrote. “In law, a search is legitimate or illicit from the moment it begins.”
The ruling directly challenges what lawyers call the third-party doctrine, a longstanding legal principle holding that individuals forfeit their Fourth Amendment protections when they voluntarily share information with outside companies. The government argued in Chatrie’s case that he gave up those protections by sharing location data with Google through apps. The court rejected that argument, holding that constitutional protections apply regardless of whether a person has shared data with a commercial service.
Nine in ten Americans own a cell phone, according to Pew Research Center data cited by El Diario. Navigation apps, rideshare platforms, and weather apps all collect location data continuously. Nearly everyone generates location data law enforcement has been accessing without a warrant under the old doctrine.
A 2025 Harvard Law Review article cited by El Diario identified the core tension: “existing Fourth Amendment doctrine does not fit well with big tech in general, and with private mass surveillance technology in particular.” The review also noted that some advocates have called for an outright ban on geofence warrants, but cautioned that a total prohibition could leave police without clear rules to follow.
The ruling does not ban geofence warrants. It requires law enforcement to obtain judicial approval before using them to access personal location data, extending the same warrant requirement that applies to physical searches into the digital domain.
Featured image: Bushwick Daily image
