Supreme Court to Rule on Police Use of Cellphone Location Warrants

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a closely watched case that could reshape how police use cellphone location data in criminal investigations, weighing whether warrants that sweep up the movements of large numbers of people are constitutional.

At issue is the growing use of so-called geofence warrants, which compel technology companies to turn over anonymized or identifiable location data for every device detected within a defined area and time frame. Supporters say the tool helps solve crimes with limited leads, while critics argue it risks turning routine police work into mass surveillance.

The ruling, expected later this year, could have broad implications for digital privacy, law enforcement practices, and how courts interpret the Fourth Amendment in an era where smartphones routinely log users’ movements.

Case centers on Google data and a Virginia bank robbery

The case arises from a 2019 robbery at the Call Federal Credit Union in Midlothian, a suburb of Richmond, Virginia. Investigators, lacking a suspect, sought a geofence warrant requiring Google to provide location data for devices present near the bank during the time of the crime.

Using the information produced under that warrant, police identified and later arrested Okello Chatrie. He ultimately pleaded guilty to the robbery and received a sentence of nearly 12 years in federal prison.

Chatrie later challenged the warrant, arguing it violated his constitutional rights by allowing police to collect location history from people near the bank without individualized suspicion. His lawyers said the search amounted to an impermissibly broad sweep that treated innocent bystanders as potential suspects.

Lower courts divided on constitutionality

A federal district judge agreed that the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches, finding it was overly broad and lacked sufficient particularity. However, the judge allowed the evidence to be used at trial, concluding that the officer who sought the warrant acted in good faith and reasonably believed the search was lawful.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, upheld Chatrie’s conviction in a divided decision, with judges offering differing views on how existing privacy law applies to digital location data.

That ruling stands in tension with a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, which found that geofence warrants are unconstitutional because they effectively search the data of many people without probable cause.

The split between federal appeals courts set the stage for Supreme Court review.

Voluntary data sharing at heart of legal dispute

Prosecutors have argued that Chatrie had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his location data because he voluntarily enabled Google’s Location History feature, allowing the company to collect and store that information.

Defense lawyers counter that users do not meaningfully consent to law enforcement access to their data simply by using smartphone services, and that constitutional protections should not depend on opaque settings buried in digital platforms.

The Supreme Court has previously ruled that police generally need a warrant to obtain historical cellphone location data from wireless carriers, recognizing the sensitive nature of information that can reveal a person’s movements over time. The justices have not yet addressed whether similar protections apply to geofence warrants that initially capture data from large numbers of devices.

Broader implications for privacy and policing

Geofence warrants have become increasingly common across the United States, often used in cases ranging from robberies to serious violent crimes. Technology companies, including Google, have reported receiving thousands of such requests from law enforcement each year.

Civil liberties groups argue the practice risks chilling everyday activities by placing people under potential surveillance simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Law enforcement agencies respond that geofence warrants are often a last resort and can be refined to narrow the pool of data reviewed.

The Supreme Court’s decision could clarify how traditional constitutional standards apply to digital evidence generated by modern devices, potentially setting limits on how broadly police can search location databases.

Timing and next steps

The case is expected to be argued either later this spring or in October, when the court begins its next term. A decision would likely come by mid-2026.

Whatever the outcome, legal analysts say the ruling is likely to influence future investigations, technology company policies, and the evolving balance between privacy rights and public safety in the digital age.