Cybersecurity Policy Report, Supreme Court Justices Differ in Geofence Warrant Case, (Apr 28, 2026)

By Paul Kirby

Conservative and liberal Supreme Court judges expressed disagreement yesterday in a case that focuses on whether the execution of a geofence warrant violates the Fourth Amendment.

“Geofence warrants seek information regarding [cellphone] devices that were within a particular geographic area during a particular time period. The warrant draws a virtual ‘fence’ around a particular geographic area (hence ‘geofence’) and seeks information about devices within that ‘fence’ during the relevant time period,” observed the petition for a writ of certiorari that the Supreme Court granted in the case.

Okello Chatrie v. U.S. (docketed July 30, 2025), No. 25-112, deals with a geofence warrant served on Google LLC that directed the tech company to scan more than 500 million users of Google’s location history capability. It led to the arrest and conviction of Okello Chatrie, a bank robbery suspect.

Adam Unikowsky, an attorney for the petitioner, argued that the execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, saying that the government should have obtained more than one warrant given the three steps to the process involving Google.

In response to a warrant, Google returned a list of all devices that were within 150 meters of the crime scene within an hour of the robbery. Law enforcement officers then sought and obtained, without another warrant, additional information on certain devices for a two-hour period. After that, law enforcement authorities asked, without a warrant, for de-anonymized subscriber information for three devices, leading them to Mr. Chatrie.

Mr. Unikowsky cited a 5-4 2018 Supreme Court ruling in Carpenter v. United States that a warrant based on probable cause was generally needed before law enforcement agents could obtain historical cell-site location information (CSLI) (CPR, June 29, 2018).

“The privacy concerns arising from geofence warrants are even greater than the privacy concerns at issue in Carpenter,” according to the cert petition in the current case.

Mr. Unikowsky also pressed an argument that Americans have a property right to their data. He asked the court to conclude that a search occurred in the case and that there were problems with the warrant, saying that it could do this “without reaching some of the narrower questions.” He also said the case was an optimal one to decide the Fourth Amendment question.

He noted that “the court did not grant certiorari on” the good-faith exception “and so we didn't brief it, so all we'd ask for in this case is, if the court finds a Fourth Amendment violation, to reverse and send it back to the Fourth Circuit to consider the good-faith issue in view of this court’s guidance.”

“This is an important subject because lots of providers store data, not just Google. There’s something like 30 amicus briefs or 29 amicus briefs in this case, including by many of the … titans of the tech world, and so I think a lot of people think that this case will have implications beyond these particular facts. So we'd urge the Court to decide the question on which … it granted certiorari,” he said.

“Well, we can affirm on any ground that would support the judgment and was raised below, and the good-faith exception qualifies on all those points,” said Justice Samuel Alito Jr. “So the fact that the Court did not grant certiorari on the good-faith exception does not preclude any of us from relying on that.”

The Office of the Solicitor General told the court in a brief in the case that a decision on the Fourth Amendment “would not in itself have any practical effect on the outcome of this case, because a majority of Fourth Circuit judges, as well as the district court, already correctly determined that under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained pursuant to the geofence warrant should not be suppressed even if the warrant is unconstitutional.”

“Petitioner therefore also asks (Pet. 34-37) for review of the lower courts’ application of the good-faith exception in this particular case. But that factbound issue does not warrant this Court’s review; indeed, the Court denied a petition raising similar arguments earlier this Term,” the government said. “Moreover, even if this case were an appropriate vehicle to address issues concerning geofence warrants directed at Google, any decision in this case may have limited prospective importance given recent changes to Google’s internal data-storage policy that would make Google unable to respond to such warrants going forward. This Court should deny the petition.”

Since 2023, Google has stored location history on devices. As a result, it has told authorities that it can no longer comply with such warrants.

During yesterday’s oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Eric Feigin told the justices that Mr. Unikowsky wanted a “fortress” around the Fourth Amendment, which he said “would impede the investigation” of many major types of crimes.

He also said the government did not need to get a warrant in the case, but it did anyway.

Pressed by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Mr. Feigin conceded that calendar entries, photos, and e-mail would involve a search and would need a warrant. He also said the government would be hard-pressed to make the case that tracking into a private residence did not need a warrant, although he was not definitive on that point.

Justices grilled attorneys whose arguments differed from their apparent positions and sought support from attorneys with similar views.

“Mr. Unikowsky, I'm struggling to understand why we are hearing this case other than the fact that at least four of us voted to take it,” said Justice Alito, citing the views of the lower court judges regarding the good-faith exemption. He added that the issues would make an interesting “law review article” and mentioned an “advisory opinion.”

The justice also noted that a person would “have to take a number of steps [on their devices] in order to disclose [location information]. You have to choose to disclose it.”

Mr. Alito asked Mr. Feigin which of the petitioner’s arguments would be more disruptive, including that the geofence warrant amounted to a general warrant, that there is a property interest in data, and a request to treat Google’s search as if it was being done directly by law enforcement. “Which is the worst?” the justice asked.

“Is all of the above an option, Justice Alito?” Mr. Feigin replied.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh queried Mr. Feigin on whether there were any “practical problems” to require a warrant to access location information. Mr. Feigin said no. As for parameters, they discussed those dealing with “reasonable, temporal and geographical bounds.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Mr. Feigin that it was “not much of a burden” to go back for another warrant in the case involving Google. He replied that in recent cases, law enforcement officers had done that.

The justice also said it would be helpful to clarify boundaries, noting a difference of positions existing among judges, with some saying there was no right of privacy and no warrant was needed while others backed warrants.

Electronic Privacy Information Center Executive Director and President Alan Butler said, “Today’s arguments underscored that the Supreme Court is weighing one of the most consequential privacy questions of the digital age: whether the government can use sweeping location data searches to identify a suspect.

“Geofence searches are an incredibly invasive investigative technique that threaten the Fourth Amendment rights of hundreds of millions of individuals,” Mr. Butler added. “The Court should hold that the Constitution protects our digital data even when it is stored by an app or cloud provider. The Court should ensure that the highly sensitive records generated by our phones cannot be obtained without particularized suspicion and close judicial oversight.”

News: FederalLegislation LitigationEnforcement DataPrivacy