Can Police Access Your Location Data? Maybe...

🗂️ Background: In 2019, a man robbed a credit union in Virginia. After serving Google a "geofence warrant," law enforcement used cell phone location data to identify and charge the suspect, Okello Chatrie. Chatrie then moved to suppress the geofence evidence – arguing its use violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Yesterday, the Supreme Court weighed in – supporting cell phone privacy, but declining to rule that geofence warrants are, in and of themselves, unconstitutional. 

What is a geofence warrant?

A "geofence warrant" requires a service provider to produce location data from cell phone users who were near a scene when a crime occurred. In this particular case, police solicited cell phone data from Google for all users within 150 meters of the credit union (30 minutes before and after the robbery). 

For perspective, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit notes that Google collects the location history of over 500 million users – logging "remarkably extensive" location data every two minutes, including elevation (ex., if you’re in a building, Google can tell what floor).

What does the Fourth Amendment say?

The Fourth Amendment states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

What are the arguments in favor of geofence warrants?

⚠️ Careful compliance: The biggest argument for geofence warrants is that they provide law enforcement with a powerful way to solve crimes that may otherwise go unresolved (think kidnappings, etc). In Chatrie, prosecutors pointed to Google’s cautious execution of the warrant as an example of responsibly sourcing geofence evidence (Google initially supplied anonymized data, police narrowed the suspect pool, and then Google only revealed those identities).  

↔️ Narrowly tailored: Proponents argue that if the warrant is specific enough, it should count. For instance, prosecutors claimed that since Chatrie used a phone during the robbery – and police knew when/where the robbery took place – soliciting phone data for that specific time/place is supported by probable cause.

🕵🏻‍♂️ Voluntary exposure: Since users opt in to cell phone terms (and can often control their location data), prosecutors argued that by opting in/not turning off tracking settings, Chatrie was voluntarily exposing his data to Google – giving up any "reasonable expectation of privacy."

What are the arguments against geofence warrants?

😳 Violates Fourth Amendment: The Constitution requires law enforcement to have probable cause before issuing a warrant. Critics argue that geofence warrants turn the process upside down: instead of identifying a suspect and then issuing a warrant, police issue a warrant for a group of people and then work backwards.

🛑 Non-voluntary exposure: Chatrie’s defense argued that simply opting into Google’s terms of service (and not turning off location tracking) didn’t constitute acknowledgment (or "meaningful consent") that his information could be handed over to the government.

What did earlier courts say? 

On March 3, 2022, the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied Chatrie's motion to suppress geofence evidence. While admitting the warrant had serious Fourth Amendment problems (including lack of particularized probable cause), the district court ruled it could stand under the "good-faith exception" (see next section for details). Chatrie then entered a conditional guilty plea (reserving the right to appeal the geofence issue) and was sentenced to 141 months in prison.

On July 9, 2024, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial, ruling law enforcement did not conduct a Fourth Amendment search because Chatrie voluntarily exposed his location history to Google.

On January 30, 2025, the Fourth Circuit heard the case en banc (meaning the full court, not just three judges). On April 30, 2025, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of suppression – but the judges were deeply divided, issuing multiple opinions disagreeing over Fourth Amendment issues.

Chatrie then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and, on January 16, 2026, SCOTUS agreed to accept the case (offering to rule on whether the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, but declining to consider the good-faith/exclusionary rule topic).

What is a good-faith exception?

Courts are not allowed to consider evidence collected in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights – a principle known as the "exclusionary rule."

In 1984 (United States v. Leon), the Supreme Court created an exception to the exclusionary rule called the "good-faith exception." In a nutshell, it states that even if a warrant is later found to be unconstitutional, the evidence it produced may still be used if law enforcement acted "in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate."

When the Chatrie case was first heard, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia acknowledged major Fourth Amendment problems – but ultimately decided they didn’t matter because the geofence warrant fell under a good-faith exception. Law enforcement successfully argued the rule applied because detectives consulted with government attorneys, had previously obtained similar warrants, no court had yet ruled against geofence warrants, and the technology was new/novel. In other words, they had "good faith" that their warrant was legal.

Importantly, while Chatrie asked the Supreme Court to rule on whether the exclusionary rule should apply to the geofence evidence used in his case, SCOTUS declined – only agreeing to review whether the execution of a geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. 

What did the Supreme Court say?

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court defended constitutional protection for cell phone location data. However, the SCOTUS decision does not mean that all geofence warrants are automatically unconstitutional. Instead, it: