The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that police conduct a Fourth Amendment search when they obtain cell phone location data through a “geofence warrant.”
Thus, individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records of their cell phone’s location.
The case in question pertained to law enforcement officials using a geofence warrant that instructed Google to provide location data for cellphone users who were near a particular place during a specific time period to obtain evidence used to convict a Virginia man of a 2019 bank robbery.
The high court ruled they conducted a “search” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
“By a vote of 6-3, the justices sent Okello Chatrie’s case back to the lower court for it to consider whether, as the Fourth Amendment requires, the search was ‘reasonable,’” SCOTUSblog reports.
Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that “[a]n individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone’s location, and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information—even though for only a limited time, and from a third-party tech company.”
“Important SCOTUS ruling. Get a d*** warrant if snooping on cell phone locations!” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) commented.
Important SCOTUS ruling. Get a damn warrant if snooping on cell phone locations! https://t.co/K4a69amqpn
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 29, 2026
SCOTUSblog explained further:
Justice Samuel Alito, in a dissenting opinion joined in part by Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, contended that the majority’s opinion “will send seismic waves through our Fourth Amendment doctrine” but would ultimately not have any effect on Chatrie’s case.
The issue at the center of Chatrie v. United States arose after a man armed with a gun entered a federal credit union outside Richmond, Virginia, and gave the teller a note demanding money. He made off with nearly $200,000, but law enforcement officials did not have any leads until they served Google with a geofence warrant, which directed the tech company to provide location data for cellphone users who were near the bank at the time of the robbery.
The information that Google provided to law enforcement officials came in three tranches. First, Google gave law enforcement officials a list of the 19 accounts (but without the names attached to those accounts) linked to devices that were within 150 meters of the bank during the 30 minutes before and after the robbery. Second, based on that list of 19 accounts, the government asked for additional information about nine accounts that were in the area during a two-hour period. At the third step, a detective asked for, and received, the names and information associated with three accounts – one of which was Chatrie’s.
Relying on the location data, law enforcement officials obtained a warrant to search two residences linked to Chatrie, where they found almost $100,000 of the stolen cash, a gun, and demand notes.
Prosecutors charged Chatrie with bank robbery. He asked the trial judge to bar prosecutors from using the evidence obtained as a result of the geofence warrant at his trial, arguing that the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.
Kagan said courts have to guard against “undue encroachment” on Fourth Amendment rights.
“The Fourth Amendment must, as ever, protect against unjustified government intrusion on the privacy of the individual,” she added, according to NBC News.
The Supreme Court has limited law enforcement’s use of sprawling “geofence warrants” that track a suspect using cellphone location data from a broad swath of users, including people with no connection to a crime. https://t.co/vVIIdk13MQ
— ABC News (@ABC) June 29, 2026
NBC News has more:
The concern as it relates to cell phone location-based searches is that the amount of data available gives the government a “virtual panopticon with which to scrutinize its citizens’ activities,” Kagan wrote.
In dissent, conservative Justice Samuel Alito said he would have found that no warrant is required, calling the ruling an “irresponsible escapade” that the court should never have agreed to hear.
He accused the majority of “striking a pose as a great champion of privacy in the digital age.”
Privacy rights advocates have raised concerns about geofence warrants, calling them a form of dragnet surveillance because the information is not just about one suspect but anyone who was in the location in question. They have warned that such warrants could be used to target disfavored political groups, including protesters.
In the Chatrie case, Google initially provided information about 19 users, and a police officer later narrowed it down.
Chatrie pleaded guilty to federal charges of armed robbery and brandishing a firearm, and he was sentenced to almost 12 years in prison. But he reserved the right to appeal on the issue now decided by the Supreme Court.
When the case returns to lower courts, Chatrie’s lawyers will argue that the warrant was too broad and therefore violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
The post “Get A D*** Warrant” – Supreme Court Rules Law Enforcement Use Of Cell Phone Location Data Requires Warrant appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.