The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the constitutionality of geofence warrants, which permit law enforcement to access cellphone location data from broad areas around crime scenes. Announced on January 16, 2026, this case centers on Fourth Amendment protections and could reshape digital privacy standards.
The case involves Okello Chatrie, who was convicted of armed robbery for a 2019 incident at a credit union near Richmond, Virginia. Police identified Chatrie after serving a geofence warrant on Google, obtaining location data for all devices near the bank during the robbery hour. This technique allowed detectives to pinpoint Chatrie’s phone, leading to his arrest and conviction, but also collected anonymized data from millions of unrelated individuals, raising privacy concerns.
Geofence warrants have divided lower courts, with some ruling they violate the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches. Others have upheld them, arguing that users voluntarily share location data with tech companies. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the appeal underscores the legal uncertainty surrounding this increasingly common police tool.
This review follows a 2018 Supreme Court ruling that required probable cause for accessing cellphone tower records. In that case, Chief Justice John Roberts joined liberal justices, while conservatives Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented. The current case may revisit these divisions, as it involves more extensive data from app-based services rather than traditional tower logs.
Chatrie’s attorneys argue that geofence warrants lack clear rules, creating confusion for judges and tech companies seeking to balance cooperation with privacy protections. They contend that such warrants risk constitutional violations on a large scale. The federal government counters that these warrants do not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, since users opt into location services for practical benefits like navigation.
Tech companies have responded to the controversy; Google changed its data storage policy last year to make compliance with geofence warrants more difficult. The government has suggested this change might render the case moot, but the Supreme Court proceeded, indicating the issue’s broader importance for future investigations and digital rights.
The outcome could set a precedent for how police use technology in criminal cases, affecting both law enforcement efficiency and individual privacy. A ruling against geofence warrants might limit investigative tools, while approval could expand surveillance capabilities. Oral arguments are expected in the coming months, with a decision likely by the end of the court’s term in 2026, shaping the legal landscape for years to come.
