Supreme Court hears case centering on use of digital warrants and location data

WASHINGTON (Gray DC) - On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that challenges police use of “geofence warrants,” and whether or not they violate the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable government searches.

The warrants have become an increasingly common way that law enforcement investigate crimes, by requesting broad amounts of user location data at the site of a crime.

The technique is now under scrutiny after it was used to solve a 2019 bank robbery in Virginia. The suspect fled the scene and left police without any leads. Weeks later, investigators got a geofence warrant that compelled Google to turn over all location data from uses in the vicinity of the crime.

The warrant eventually led to the arrest and conviction of Okello Chatrie, who challenged the use of the warrant and led the case to the high court on Monday.

“We filed the motion to suppress in 2019. It has been seven years to get to this point. And Mr. Chatrie has maintained the entire time that these sort of dragnet warrants are unconstitutional,” said Michael Price, litigation director for the Fourth Amendment Center at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and co-counsel for Chatrie.

Some digital rights advocates have said geofence warrants are concerning, describing them as “blanket warrants.”

“This case involves pretty controversial surveillance technique called a geofence warrant. And the reason that a geofence warrant is controversial is because it sort of upends the criminal investigatory process,” said Jennifer Lynch, general counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed a brief in support of Chatrie with the American Civil Liberties Union.

Price also said that the case could affect more than just criminal suspects.

“In this case, geofence warrants are sweeping up innocent people far more often than anyone is convicted. There are a number of instances where people have been wrongfully arrested and identified as a result of geofence warrants, so it’s not just something that affects innocent or guilty people. This is something that affects the rights of all Americans,” Price said.

He said the case is about much more than just a broad investigative tool used by law enforcement.

“The issues at stake in this case will impact the future of privacy rights in the digital age. Whether your data is yours, whether it’s private,” Price said.

Price said the Fourth Amendment provides protections against the digital searches.

“The prohibition on these types of digital dragnets is something that is basic to the Fourth Amendment, and necessary to preserve that degree of protection against government intrusion,” Price said.

The government argued that because smartphone users voluntarily share their location with tech companies, they waive any reasonable expectation of privacy. But the justices appeared to be divided on whether that argument will hold up.

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned potential government overreach.

“What’s to prevent the government from using this to find out the identities of everybody at a particular church, a particular political organization? What are the restraints that would prevent that from becoming a problem?” Roberts said.

Justice Samuel Alito noted the terms of service agreements between users and tech companies.

“Had he read his contract with Google, he could see that Google retained the right to turn this information over to law enforcement if it thought that that was appropriate,” Alito said.

The justices are expected to issue a decision in the case in June.