What's At Stake in Chatrie V. United States

Why It Matters

The ruling will define whether law enforcement can routinely sweep cloud-stored location data en masse or whether stricter Fourth Amendment limits are required, with major consequences for digital privacy, surveillance practices, and how police conduct investigations. It could also set precedent for access to other cloud data types beyond location history.

Summary

The Supreme Court heard Chatrie v. United States, a challenge to so-called geofence or “reverse” warrants that let police demand Google Location History data for all accounts within a place and time window to identify suspects. The case arises from a 2019 Virginia bank robbery where prosecutors obtained location data that initially implicated dozens of users and ultimately singled out Okello Chatrie. Petitioners argue the warrants are general digital dragnets that search many innocent people’s cloud-stored data without individualized probable cause; the government contends such warrants are permissible investigative tools. A decision, resolving core Fourth Amendment questions about location tracking and cloud searches, is expected by June.

Original Description

At the end of last month, the Supreme Court heard oral argument (https://www.techpolicy.press/supreme-court-examines-constitutionality-of-police-accessing-cellphone-location-data/) in Chatrie v. United States. The case involves the use of a geofence warrant (https://www.nacdl.org/Content/Geofence-Warrants) , which police use to demand information on all cellphones within a certain area and period of time. The outcome of the case, which revolves around Fourth Amendment questions, could have profound implications for location tracking and privacy in the digital age.

To learn more, Tech Policy Press fellow Jake Laperruque, who is monitoring the case (https://www.techpolicy.press/scotuss-signals-in-chatrie-and-on-the-potential-limits-of-location-tracking/) , spoke to Michael Price, who serves as litigation director (https://www.nacdl.org/People/MichaelWPrice) for the Fourth Amendment Center at National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), one of the lawyers representing the plaintiff.