# Supreme Court Rules Geofence Warrants Required for Location Data, Bolstering Digital Privacy The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police use of location history data from individuals' phones constitutes a **Fourth Amendment** search and therefore requires a warrant. This decision marks a significant victory for privacy and civil liberties advocates who have consistently argued that so-called geofence searches are unconstitutional or, at the very least, demand stricter scrutiny. ## Understanding Geofence Searches Geofence searches involve law enforcement requesting tech companies to provide a list of every phone located within a specific geographical area during a particular timeframe. This practice allows police to identify potential suspects even when they have no initial leads. The case at the heart of this ruling involves **Okello Chatrie**, a Virginia man charged with bank robbery in 2019 after police utilized **Google** location history records. While a warrant was obtained in this specific instance, a lower court had previously ruled that no warrant was necessary. **Chatrie's** legal team challenged this contention, asserting that the search was unreasonable. ## Back to the Fourth Circuit The high court has remanded the case back to the **U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit**. This appeals court will now determine whether the **Chatrie** warrant was reasonable, sufficiently narrowly tailored, and otherwise constitutional. This could lead to the establishment of strict parameters for the execution of geofence warrants. ## Challenging the Third-Party Doctrine Beyond requiring warrants for geofence searches, the Supreme Court also expressed skepticism regarding the government's argument that its search was protected by the third-party doctrine. This doctrine, often cited by law enforcement, asserts that individuals forfeit their privacy expectations when they voluntarily share information with third-party companies like **Google**, **Apple**, or **Microsoft**. **Greg Nojeim**, director of the Security and Surveillance Project at the **Center for Democracy and Technology**, highlighted the significance of this aspect. "The big deal is that the court is saying that when a person uses their cellphone in the way people in modern society use a phone, they don't forfeit their Fourth Amendment rights," **Nojeim** stated. He added, "The court is removing brick by brick the foundation of this third-party doctrine." ## Impact on Law Enforcement and Tech Companies Although **Google** no longer stores location history data in a way that law enforcement can easily access, numerous other companies, including **Uber** and **Lyft**, continue to track and store user location data. This decision will undoubtedly have a substantial impact on law enforcement practices, particularly in instances where warrants were previously not sought to compel tech companies to disclose such information. Experts had predicted a surge in law enforcement's use of geofence searches, and even other reverse searches like keyword inquiries, had the court ruled against **Chatrie**. **George Washington University** law professor **Andrew Guthrie Ferguson**, author of *Your Data Will be Used Against You*, commented via email that the ruling is "a major win for **Fourth Amendment** privacy," upgrading the amendment to meet the digital age. ## 'Inquisitive Eyes of the Government' In a 6-3 vote, the justices concluded that searching someone's **Google** location history is akin to searching private papers and journals, which the **Fourth Amendment** explicitly prohibits without a warrant. Justice **Elena Kagan**, writing for the majority, noted, "**Google** users regularly employ Location History as a personal journal. In that way, Location History resembles other private materials — e.g., emails, documents, photographs, or calendars — that even if stored on **Google's** servers, a user reasonably views as his own and expects to be shielded from the 'inquisitive eyes' of the government." The opinion highlighted that **Google** actively prompts users to enable location history, even cautioning **Android** users that their phone might not "work correctly" without it. Location history also remains active regardless of whether a **Google** app is open or if the phone is in use, and continues to capture movement data unless actively stopped by the user. The precision of location history, pinpointing locations within approximately twenty meters and recording data every two minutes, along with its ability to determine elevation, were also significant considerations for the court. The opinion dismissed the government's argument that generating Location History is a "voluntary choice," recognizing the integral role of such services in modern smartphone usage. ## The Threat of General Warrants **Chatrie's** lawyer, **Adam Unikowsky**, had argued for an even broader decision, advocating for the complete prohibition of geofence searches, classifying them as unconstitutional general warrants. General warrants, outlawed since before the **Declaration of Independence**, allow authorities to search large groups of people without probable cause or specific targets. **Unikowsky** previously explained that geofence searches, by allowing police to search the location histories of potentially millions of phone owners, expose individuals unrelated to a crime to police scrutiny, effectively functioning as a modern general warrant. Following the ruling, **Unikowsky** expressed satisfaction, stating the decision "persuasively explains why obtaining Location History is a **Fourth Amendment** search. The Court’s decision marks a major victory for digital privacy."