Supreme Court to hear challenge to warrants for phone location data

WASHINGTON >> The U.S. Supreme Court announced Friday that it would hear a challenge to the constitutionality of a popular law enforcement tool that gives officers broad access to location data drawn from electronic devices near crime scenes.

The case, Chatrie v. United States, involves a man serving prison time for a 2019 bank robbery near Richmond, Virginia. It has not yet been scheduled for arguments but will likely be heard later this year, with a decision expected by the end of June or early July.

The man, Okello T. Chatrie, argues that so-called geofence warrants violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The warrants allow law enforcement to collect cellphone location information stored by third-party companies like Google.

Such warrants have become increasingly common in recent years, and the case will test the constitutional boundaries for the ways law enforcement officials use new technology to solve crimes.

The case began after Chatrie was indicted in 2019 on two counts related to the armed robbery of a credit union. Law enforcement officials had gathered information about Chatrie’s whereabouts at the time of the crime by collecting electronic device location data from Google.

Chatrie’s lawyers argued that a judge should not have allowed the data to be used against him, because collecting it from Google amounted to a “search” under the Fourth Amendment.

Don't miss out on what's happening!

Stay in touch with breaking news, as it happens, conveniently in your email inbox. It's FREE!

Email Sign Up
By clicking to sign up, you agree to Star-Advertiser's and Google's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. This form is protected by reCAPTCHA.

They argued that the warrant ran afoul of the Constitution’s requirements for an authorized search. They said it violated Chatrie’s expectation of privacy by allowing officials access to all location data in the vicinity of the crime scene without seeking data from users that evidence showed might have been linked to the crime.

A federal judge agreed that the warrant violated Chatrie’s rights because it lacked sufficient probable cause. But he allowed the evidence to be admitted in court, finding that the officer who requested the warrant had acted in good faith. Chatrie eventually pleaded guilty to charges related to the robbery.

After an appeals court upheld his conviction, Chatrie asked the justices to weigh in.

Lawyers for the Trump administration had urged the Supreme Court to reject the case. They said that Google had for years been the primary recipient of geofence warrants, because the company had kept a location history database called Sensorvault that stored cellphone location information at a granular level.

Google’s feature, which allows cellphone users to keep track of locations they have previously visited, is turned off by default, lawyers for the Office of the Solicitor General asserted. They argued that when users turn the feature on, they have consented to the data collection.

Indeed, D. John Sauer, the solicitor general, argued that Chatrie had opted into location tracking, and that the warrant had led law enforcement officers to uncover two robbery-style demand notes from Chatrie’s bedroom. The officers also found nearly $100,000 in U.S. currency, including bills wrapped in bands signed by a bank teller, and a silver and black semiautomatic pistol.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

© 2026 The New York Times Company

See more:National news

5 Comments
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the Terms of Service. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. Report comments if you believe they do not follow our guidelines. Having trouble with comments? Learn more here.
Please log in to comment