Supreme Court Ruling Creates New Opportunities to Challenge Government Data Requests

On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a significant victory for privacy rights in Chatrie v. United States. In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that police requests for cellphone location data are “searches” protected by the Fourth Amendment. This decision strengthens protections for individuals and businesses facing government demands for digital records.

What Is a Geofence Warrant?

To satisfy the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must generally be issued to a particular suspect, and law enforcement must convince a judge that there is “probable cause” to believe (i.e., a fair probability based on the circumstances) the suspect has committed a crime or that evidence exists in the location to be searched. But geofence warrants work differently. Instead of targeting a specific suspect, police ask technology companies to identify every device present in a geographic area during a set time window. The government views this as an efficient way to develop leads. Defense counsel view it as a broad sweep that captures data on thousands of innocent people — then uses that information to develop suspects after the fact.

The Chatrie case arose from a 2019 bank robbery in Richmond, Virginia. With no leads, police obtained a geofence warrant asking Google to identify every phone within about 500 feet of the bank during the robbery. Okello Chatrie was identified through this process and arrested. His defense team argued that this approach violated the Fourth Amendment, and the Supreme Court agreed.

Supreme Court’s Chatrie Decision: Fourth Amendment Protections Apply to Cellphone Location Data

The court held that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their phone’s location data, even when that data is stored by a third-party tech company. For anyone facing an investigation, this means the government cannot simply demand your digital records from technology providers.

The government argued that Chatrie forfeited his privacy rights by voluntarily using his phone’s location features. The court firmly rejected this argument. Using a smartphone does not mean you’ve consented to government surveillance. The court extended its reasoning from Carpenter v. United States (2018), noting that modern phones track location with remarkable precision, often within about 65 feet, creating detailed records the Constitution protects.

The court sent the case back to the lower courts to decide whether the search warrant at issue was valid. Going forward, courts will scrutinize geofence warrants more closely, giving defense counsel grounds to challenge warrants that are too broad in their geographic scope, time frame, or the types of data sought.

How the Chatrie Ruling Impacts Individuals and Businesses Facing Government Data Requests

This ruling extends beyond geofence warrants. The court’s central message, that Fourth Amendment protections apply to digital data even when held by third parties, has significant implications for anyone facing a government investigation or subpoena.

For Individuals Facing Investigation

If you are the subject of a criminal investigation, you now have stronger grounds to challenge government requests for your digital records. Defense counsel can now argue that warrants seeking location data — and potentially internet search histories, smart device records, fitness tracker data, and app usage information — must satisfy the Fourth Amendment.

Efforts to exclude evidence obtained through overly broad digital warrants have stronger legal footing after Chatrie. Defense counsel familiar with how federal investigators operate can use this ruling to identify weaknesses in the government’s data collection process. The ruling may also apply to other types of warrants where the government seeks to identify unknown suspects from mass data requests — such as warrants asking technology companies to identify everyone who searched for a particular term.

For Businesses and Corporations 

Companies facing government investigations or responding to subpoenas and warrants for customer or employee data are well-positioned to push back. Chatrie provides a framework for challenging requests that lack proper legal basis or sweep too broadly. This applies whether your company is the target of an investigation or is simply a third-party receiving government demands for records. This ruling applies broadly to any business that collects or stores user location data. Businesses should work with counsel to evaluate government data requests and consider whether Chatrie supports narrowing or challenging those demands.

If you are facing a government investigation, have received a warrant or subpoena for digital records, or have questions about how this ruling affects your rights, please contact Barnes & Thornburg’s White Collar, Compliance and Investigations practice.