THE HALFAX HEIMDALL AUGUR

BREAKING: The Supreme Court just ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to police use of overbroad "geofence warrants" to search for and locate unknown numbers of people in a large geographical area. This win reinforces that we don't lose our right to privacy simply because we use a cell phone.

BREAKING 🚨 The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Chatrie v. United States that geofence warrants, which sweep the location data of EVERY phone in an area, are searches under the Fourth Amendment and require probable cause. The ruling REJECTS the Trump admin's position that no warrant was needed at all.

Supreme Court ruling guts government's use of geofence warrants Text settings Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only Learn more Minimize to nav The Fourth Amendment protects a user’s “location history,” the Supreme Court ruled Monday. The same logic already applied to a cellphone’s tracking, and the high court found “no good reason exists to reach a different result for Location History” collected by third parties like Google. Split 6-3, the majority agreed that the government needs a warrant and must show reasonable cause to turn a phone’s location-tracking services into a government surveillance tool. The decision came in a case where cops used so-called geofence warrants to track down an armed bank robber from a list of all phones logged in the area. Applying a three-part process, cops worked with Google to narrow down the list of suspects and eventually arrested Okello Chatrie, who had opted in to share his location with Google every few minutes. Chatrie was sentenced to 12 years in prison but challenged the geofence warrant as an unconstitutional search. The US tried and failed to argue that no search was co…

US supreme court rules geofence warrants require constitutional privacy protections <p>Law enforcement’s use of warrants sweeping smartphone location data requires privacy protections, court rules</p><ul><li><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/series/us-politics-live">US supreme court decisions – live updates</a></p></li></ul><p>The US supreme court has ruled that law enforcement’s use of <a href="https://theguardian.com/technology/2026/apr/27/us-supreme-court-smartphone-location-data-privacy">sprawling warrants</a> that sweep up smartphone location data requires privacy protections under the fourth amendment, in a boost to critics who view their use as an unconstitutional dragnet.</p><p>Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/29/supreme-court-geofence-warrants-case-decision">Continue reading...</a>

Victory! Supreme Court Says Constitution Protects People's Location ... You have an expectation of privacy in location data that reveals your movements in the physical world, and even short-term surveillance of these movements is a search subject to the Fourth Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in Chatrie v. United States . The case involved geofence warrants, a form of dragnet surveillance police have used to vacuum up location data from electronic devices of people who happen to be in the vicinity of a crime. EFF had joined the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Virginia, and the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law in filing an amicus brief in the case. The decision in Chatrie is important: It is the first digital surveillance decision by the Court since its landmark 2018 ruling Carpenter v. United States, which involved prolonged tracking of people’s movements using cell phone location data. The new case expands that ruling by confirming that even shorter-term surveillance of location data can constitute a search because it can still reveal “private matters,” including “a wealth of detail about a person’s familial, political, professional, relig…

Now 55° Tue 71° Wed 72° byNATALIA MITTELSTADT | The National News Desk WASHINGTON (TNND) —The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of privacy protections for cellphone users' location history in the case of a bank robber whose identity was discovered through a geofence warrant. In the 6-3 decision, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that people do not forfeit expectations of privacy even when they opt into Google’s location history,The Associated Press reported. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his dissent that the robber, Okello Chatrie, did not have the expectation of privacy with information he voluntarily turned over to Google. After a bankrobberyin a suburb of Richmond, Va., police obtained a geofence warrant and used it to locate cellphones that were near the crime scene in May 2019. One of those phones near the bank belonged to Chatrie, who had eluded the police until that point. When investigators determined that Chatrie was among those near the Call Federal Credit Union in Midlothian at the time, police obtained a search warrant for his home, where they found nearly $100,000 in cash, including bills wrapped in bands signed by the bank teller. Chatrie pleaded guilty to ro…

Now 81° Tue 86° Wed 90° Armstrong Williams takes on the news of the week and asks the questions you want answered. Don’t miss our weekly town hall! byNATALIA MITTELSTADT | The National News Desk WASHINGTON (TNND) —The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of privacy protections for cellphone users' location history in the case of a bank robber whose identity was discovered through a geofence warrant. In the 6-3 decision, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that people do not forfeit expectations of privacy even when they opt into Google’s location history,The Associated Press reported. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his dissent that the robber, Okello Chatrie, did not have the expectation of privacy with information he voluntarily turned over to Google. After a bankrobberyin a suburb of Richmond, Va., police obtained a geofence warrant and used it to locate cellphones that were near the crime scene in May 2019. One of those phones near the bank belonged to Chatrie, who had eluded the police until that point. When investigators determined that Chatrie was among those near the Call Federal Credit Union in Midlothian at the time, police obtained a search warrant for his home, where …

Now 55° Tue 71° Wed 72° byNATALIA MITTELSTADT | The National News Desk WASHINGTON (TNND) —The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of privacy protections for cellphone users' location history in the case of a bank robber whose identity was discovered through a geofence warrant. In the 6-3 decision, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that people do not forfeit expectations of privacy even when they opt into Google’s location history,The Associated Press reported. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his dissent that the robber, Okello Chatrie, did not have the expectation of privacy with information he voluntarily turned over to Google. After a bankrobberyin a suburb of Richmond, Va., police obtained a geofence warrant and used it to locate cellphones that were near the crime scene in May 2019. One of those phones near the bank belonged to Chatrie, who had eluded the police until that point. When investigators determined that Chatrie was among those near the Call Federal Credit Union in Midlothian at the time, police obtained a search warrant for his home, where they found nearly $100,000 in cash, including bills wrapped in bands signed by the bank teller. Chatrie pleaded guilty to ro…

BREAKING (Good) News: SCOTUS rules the 4th Amendment applies to police use of "geofence warrants" when they search for unknown numbers of people in a large geographical area. In other words, your cell phone privacy data remains private and police need a specific warrant to search it. A big win.

Now 55° Tue 71° Wed 72° byNATALIA MITTELSTADT | The National News Desk WASHINGTON (TNND) —The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of privacy protections for cellphone users' location history in the case of a bank robber whose identity was discovered through a geofence warrant. In the 6-3 decision, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that people do not forfeit expectations of privacy even when they opt into Google’s location history,The Associated Press reported. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his dissent that the robber, Okello Chatrie, did not have the expectation of privacy with information he voluntarily turned over to Google. After a bankrobberyin a suburb of Richmond, Va., police obtained a geofence warrant and used it to locate cellphones that were near the crime scene in May 2019. One of those phones near the bank belonged to Chatrie, who had eluded the police until that point. When investigators determined that Chatrie was among those near the Call Federal Credit Union in Midlothian at the time, police obtained a search warrant for his home, where they found nearly $100,000 in cash, including bills wrapped in bands signed by the bank teller. Chatrie pleaded guilty to ro…

Digital location data heads back to the Supreme Court | SCOTUSblog (Win McNamee/Getty Images) On Monday, April 27, the Supreme Court will hear Chatrie v. United States , a case about police access to geofence data, a digital record of a person’s location. This case could serve as a landmark intervention in Fourth Amendment doctrine in the digital age – or a more limited adjustment of those rules. The court could also greenlight or restrain “reverse” searches, a key investigative tactic of the digital age. Either way, this is the most important case on digital privacy the court has heard in years. Background The Supreme Court last weighed in on the digital Fourth Amendment in 2017. In Carpenter v. United States , the court addressed whether the police had to get a warrant before accessing a certain kind of digital location data, cell-site location information. Cell phones generate CSLI anytime they are on by scanning for the nearest cell tower with strong service. When a cell phone connects to a tower, that tower then records that connection in CSLI logs. A phone’s location can be tracked across time and space by reviewing those logs. Writing for a 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John …

Supreme Court Looks at Geofence Warrants in Chatrie Can police compel companies to turn over mass location data to find a suspect? June 24, 2026 News Article Can police compel companies to turn over mass location data to find a suspect? June 24, 2026 As the Supreme Court’s term comes to a close, a decision onChatrie v. United Statescould be released any day now. In a Fourth Amendment case, the Court’s ruling could critically alter how law enforcement uses private data in criminal investigations. But it appears that a straightforward decision will not be issued. The crux of this case deals withgeofence warrants,which compel technology companies to present cellular location data within a specific geographical area and time frame. Unlike a typical warrant, a geofence warrant allows law enforcement to collect data on everyone in and around a particular location—without probable cause. These are essentially warrants that work in reverse, identifying a suspect only after gathering private data from a larger pool of people. In 2019, Okello Chatrie wasarrestedin connection with an armed robbery of acredit union inVirginia. After the investigation slowed, law enforcement served a ge…

Supreme Court rules that broad cell phone location data sweeps require ... "Geo-fence warrants" allow law enforcement to get broad cell location data, even without a suspect in mind. Vanessa Leroy / NBC News; Getty Images Share Add NBC News to Google June 29, 2026, 12:59 PM EDT By Lawrence Hurley WASHINGTON — In a ruling applying individual constitutional protections to new technology, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that sweeping use of cell phone location data requires a warrant. Limited time: Save 25% on NBC News subscription Get exclusive reporting, live Q&As and ad-free reading. The case focused on a Virginia bank robbery, where a conviction rested in part on cell phone location information law enforcement received from Google through a so-called geofence warrant. These allow law enforcement to obtain data showing cell phone users who were in the vicinity of a crime scene, even if they are not targeting a specific suspect. The court, divided 6-3, found that broad geofence surveillance constitutes a search under the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court rejected the Trump administration’s argument that no warran…

#BREAKING In a landmark 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court rules that "geofence warrants," which allow law enforcement to collect sweeping smartphone location data over a broad area, constitute an "unreasonable search" and violate the Fourth Amendment.

Now 81° Tue 86° Wed 90° Armstrong Williams takes on the news of the week and asks the questions you want answered. Don’t miss our weekly town hall! byNATALIA MITTELSTADT | The National News Desk WASHINGTON (TNND) —The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of privacy protections for cellphone users' location history in the case of a bank robber whose identity was discovered through a geofence warrant. In the 6-3 decision, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that people do not forfeit expectations of privacy even when they opt into Google’s location history,The Associated Press reported. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his dissent that the robber, Okello Chatrie, did not have the expectation of privacy with information he voluntarily turned over to Google. After a bankrobberyin a suburb of Richmond, Va., police obtained a geofence warrant and used it to locate cellphones that were near the crime scene in May 2019. One of those phones near the bank belonged to Chatrie, who had eluded the police until that point. When investigators determined that Chatrie was among those near the Call Federal Credit Union in Midlothian at the time, police obtained a search warrant for his home, where …

Now 55° Tue 71° Wed 72° byNATALIA MITTELSTADT | The National News Desk WASHINGTON (TNND) —The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of privacy protections for cellphone users' location history in the case of a bank robber whose identity was discovered through a geofence warrant. In the 6-3 decision, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that people do not forfeit expectations of privacy even when they opt into Google’s location history,The Associated Press reported. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his dissent that the robber, Okello Chatrie, did not have the expectation of privacy with information he voluntarily turned over to Google. After a bankrobberyin a suburb of Richmond, Va., police obtained a geofence warrant and used it to locate cellphones that were near the crime scene in May 2019. One of those phones near the bank belonged to Chatrie, who had eluded the police until that point. When investigators determined that Chatrie was among those near the Call Federal Credit Union in Midlothian at the time, police obtained a search warrant for his home, where they found nearly $100,000 in cash, including bills wrapped in bands signed by the bank teller. Chatrie pleaded guilty to ro…

Supreme Court rules constitutional privacy protections apply to ... Activists and demonstrators wait outside the Supreme Court for the Justices to release opinions, in Washington, Monday, June 29, 2026. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) WASHINGTON (AP) — TheSupreme Courtheld Monday that constitutional privacy protections extend to cellphone location information, ruling in the case of a bank robber whose identity was discovered through ageofence warrant. Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the 6-3 court that people don’t forfeit expectations of privacy even when they opt into Google’s location history. “A cellphone user is not to be viewed as sharing private information with third parties—which then can be freely passed on to the government—just by doing the ordinary things cellphone users do,” Kagan wrote. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in dissent that Okello Chatrie had no expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turned over to Google. The decision is the court’s latest effort to apply a constitutional provision ratified in 1791 to technology the nation’s founders could not have envisioned. Police obtained a geofence warrant after a bank robbery in a suburb of Richmond, Virg…

Now 55° Tue 71° Wed 72° byNATALIA MITTELSTADT | The National News Desk WASHINGTON (TNND) —The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of privacy protections for cellphone users' location history in the case of a bank robber whose identity was discovered through a geofence warrant. In the 6-3 decision, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that people do not forfeit expectations of privacy even when they opt into Google’s location history,The Associated Press reported. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his dissent that the robber, Okello Chatrie, did not have the expectation of privacy with information he voluntarily turned over to Google. After a bankrobberyin a suburb of Richmond, Va., police obtained a geofence warrant and used it to locate cellphones that were near the crime scene in May 2019. One of those phones near the bank belonged to Chatrie, who had eluded the police until that point. When investigators determined that Chatrie was among those near the Call Federal Credit Union in Midlothian at the time, police obtained a search warrant for his home, where they found nearly $100,000 in cash, including bills wrapped in bands signed by the bank teller. Chatrie pleaded guilty to ro…

Court rules that law enforcement's use of "geofence warrant" was a ... (Kevin Carter/Getty Images) Updated on June 29 at 3:50 p.m. The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that when law enforcement officials used a “geofence warrant” – a warrant that instructed Google to provide location data for cellphone users who were near a particular place during a specific time period – to obtain evidence used to convict a Virginia man of a 2019 bank robbery, they conducted a “search” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. By a vote of 6-3, the justices sent Okello Chatrie’s case back to the lower court for it to consider whether, as the Fourth Amendment requires, the search was “reasonable.” Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan emphasized that “[a]n individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone’s location, and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information—even though for only a limited time, and from a third-party tech company.” Justice Samuel Alito, in a dissenting opinion joined in part by Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, contended that the majority’s opinion “will send seismic waves through…

Now 81° Tue 86° Wed 90° Armstrong Williams takes on the news of the week and asks the questions you want answered. Don’t miss our weekly town hall! byNATALIA MITTELSTADT | The National News Desk WASHINGTON (TNND) —The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of privacy protections for cellphone users' location history in the case of a bank robber whose identity was discovered through a geofence warrant. In the 6-3 decision, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that people do not forfeit expectations of privacy even when they opt into Google’s location history,The Associated Press reported. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his dissent that the robber, Okello Chatrie, did not have the expectation of privacy with information he voluntarily turned over to Google. After a bankrobberyin a suburb of Richmond, Va., police obtained a geofence warrant and used it to locate cellphones that were near the crime scene in May 2019. One of those phones near the bank belonged to Chatrie, who had eluded the police until that point. When investigators determined that Chatrie was among those near the Call Federal Credit Union in Midlothian at the time, police obtained a search warrant for his home, where …

The court draws a privacy line. The Supreme Court has placed limits on geofence warrants, requiring police to obtain them before accessing Google location data. The Department of Homeland Security intends to expand CISA by hiring more cybersecurity professionals and appoin… #apple #hackernews #news

Nguyen v. State | American Civil Liberties Union This case concerns the constitutionality of a highly intrusive law enforcement practice: the use of geofence warrants. Geofence warrants compel tech companies like Google to provide to law enforcement location data from every cell phone likely to have been within a certain area during a given time window. Then, law enforcement officers decide for themselves which users to focus on, and demand additional location information—and eventually identifying information—for the users they select. Geofence warrants raise grave constitutional concerns, including that (1) they authorize dragnet searches that sweep up the private data of many people without probable cause to believe that all or any of them were involved in any crime, and (2) they allow law enforcement officers to decide which users to focus on for additional data collection without judicial oversight. This case therefore has significant implications for Texans’ ability to secure their digital privacy and property against unjustified government intrusion. In this case, a detective submitted a geofence warrant requiring Google to disclose all cell phones located within certain a…

-Amy Hamilton 1/ "BREAKING — YOUR PHONE KNOWS WHERE YOU ARE. NOW THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS A WARRANT TO FIND OUT.** The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 today in *Chatrie v. United States* that your cellphone location history is protected by the Fourth Amendment. "

"US Supreme Court rules that law enforcement's acquisition of historical location data through geofence warrants constitutes a Fourth Amendment search, marking a major victory for digital privacy... police must satisfy the Constitution's warrant requirements 1st" cyberinsider.com/us-supreme-c...

Now 81° Tue 86° Wed 90° Armstrong Williams takes on the news of the week and asks the questions you want answered. Don’t miss our weekly town hall! byNATALIA MITTELSTADT | The National News Desk WASHINGTON (TNND) —The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of privacy protections for cellphone users' location history in the case of a bank robber whose identity was discovered through a geofence warrant. In the 6-3 decision, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that people do not forfeit expectations of privacy even when they opt into Google’s location history,The Associated Press reported. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his dissent that the robber, Okello Chatrie, did not have the expectation of privacy with information he voluntarily turned over to Google. After a bankrobberyin a suburb of Richmond, Va., police obtained a geofence warrant and used it to locate cellphones that were near the crime scene in May 2019. One of those phones near the bank belonged to Chatrie, who had eluded the police until that point. When investigators determined that Chatrie was among those near the Call Federal Credit Union in Midlothian at the time, police obtained a search warrant for his home, where …

Pa. high court rules that police can access Google searches without a ... Image: sixthcitysarah via Unsplash Pa. high court rules that police can access Google searches without a warrant The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police did not need a warrant to obtain a convicted rapist’s Google searches when investigating the crime. In its opinion , the court said that internet users making searches have no reasonable right to privacy because “it is common knowledge that websites, internet-based applications, and internet service providers collect, and then sell, user data.” The case only creates legal precedent in Pennsylvania, but an expert predicted that the ruling will lead more police departments to feel confident about warrantless searches for internet queries. “If a rather progressive state like Pennsylvania gives the green light to warrantless collection of your search queries, I think it fair to say that is going to open up its use across the nation,” said Andrew Ferguson, a law professor at George Washington University and the author of the forthcoming book “Your Data Will Be Used Against You.” Police in the case before the court had hit a dead end in their prob…

SCOTUS says police need a warrant to pull your phone’s location history. Major privacy win and subtle indictment on what tech companies store about you. Take 5 minutes to know your 4th amendment rights! open.spotify.com/episode/1iqO...

Supreme Court restricts use of geofence warrants Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Elena Kagan said that the technique, known as geofencing, violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches.

Now 81° Tue 86° Wed 90° Armstrong Williams takes on the news of the week and asks the questions you want answered. Don’t miss our weekly town hall! byNATALIA MITTELSTADT | The National News Desk WASHINGTON (TNND) —The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of privacy protections for cellphone users' location history in the case of a bank robber whose identity was discovered through a geofence warrant. In the 6-3 decision, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that people do not forfeit expectations of privacy even when they opt into Google’s location history,The Associated Press reported. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his dissent that the robber, Okello Chatrie, did not have the expectation of privacy with information he voluntarily turned over to Google. After a bankrobberyin a suburb of Richmond, Va., police obtained a geofence warrant and used it to locate cellphones that were near the crime scene in May 2019. One of those phones near the bank belonged to Chatrie, who had eluded the police until that point. When investigators determined that Chatrie was among those near the Call Federal Credit Union in Midlothian at the time, police obtained a search warrant for his home, where …

In major privacy win, Supreme Court rules geofence warrants are ... The first StrictlyVC of 2026 hits SF on April 30. Tickets are going fast.Register now. Founder Summitticket savings of up to $190 end June 26. Join 1,000+ founders and VCs for all-day bootcamp.REGISTER NOW. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday limited the law enforcement use of “geofence” search warrants, in a major legal ruling that is likely to have broad ramifications for privacy rights and law enforcement across the United States. In the 6-3 ruling, the U.S. top court said that “an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information.” According to the court, that means people have privacy rights when it comes to the location history collected by their phones, as well as the services and apps running on them. Because of that, the court ruled that authorities need to obtain a search warrant when asking tech companies, such as Google, for the location data of their users, including when requesting historical geofence location data. In part, the Supreme Court argued that authorities need to obtain a search warrant to get geofence location data because a user is not willingly …

ACLU Applauds Important Supreme Court Decision Making Clear Location Data is Protected by the Constitution | American Civil Liberties Union Press Releases › ACLU Applauds Important Supreme Court Decision Making Clear Location Data is Protected by the Constitution The decision applying Fourth Amendment limits to this novel surveillance technique is a big win for privacy in the digital age, group says Case : United States v. Chatrie Affiliate : ACLU of Virginia June 29, 2026 12:00 pm ACLU Affiliate ACLU of Virginia Media Contact media@aclu.org (212) 549-2666 125 Broad Street 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 United States WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court held today that a dragnet search using Google’s location history data is covered by the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable search and seizures. The decision forcefully rejected the government’s argument that law enforcement can request our location data in the form of a “geofence” search free of any Fourth Amendment limitation. The geofence search at issue in the case is an invasive surveillance technique that enables police …

BREAKING: The Supreme Court just ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to police use of overbroad "geofence warrants" to search for and locate unknown numbers of people in a large geographical area. This win reinforces that we don't lose our right to privacy simply because we use a cell phone.

US Supreme Court restricts geofence warrants after Google case; what are they The Supreme Court has significantly curbed the use of 'geofence warrants' by law enforcement, deeming them a violation of Fourth Amendment privacy rights. This ruling restricts police from accessing vast location data from tech companies to identify individuals near crime scenes. The court emphasized that automated tracking of millions, even with data held by third parties, requires constitutional safeguards against unreasonable searches, impacting a tool widely used by detectives.

BREAKING: In a landmark 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court rules that "geofence warrants," which allow law enforcement to collect sweeping smartphone location data over a broad area, constitute an "unreasonable search" and violate the Fourth Amendment. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026...

🔴 BREAKING: The Supreme Court has ruled that police do trigger the Fourth Amendment when they use geofence warrants to pull cellphone location data from Google, delivering a major blow to dragnet-style digital policing.

Now 81° Tue 86° Wed 90° Armstrong Williams takes on the news of the week and asks the questions you want answered. Don’t miss our weekly town hall! byNATALIA MITTELSTADT | The National News Desk WASHINGTON (TNND) —The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of privacy protections for cellphone users' location history in the case of a bank robber whose identity was discovered through a geofence warrant. In the 6-3 decision, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that people do not forfeit expectations of privacy even when they opt into Google’s location history,The Associated Press reported. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his dissent that the robber, Okello Chatrie, did not have the expectation of privacy with information he voluntarily turned over to Google. After a bankrobberyin a suburb of Richmond, Va., police obtained a geofence warrant and used it to locate cellphones that were near the crime scene in May 2019. One of those phones near the bank belonged to Chatrie, who had eluded the police until that point. When investigators determined that Chatrie was among those near the Call Federal Credit Union in Midlothian at the time, police obtained a search warrant for his home, where …

The Supreme Court Case That Shaped Digital Privacy—And What's Changed ... Last updated: Jan 17, 2026 2:36 PM GovFacts Published: January 17, 2026 SHARE Last updated 6 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change. Contents How Geofence Warrants Work The Constitutional Problem The 2019 Bank Robbery Case What the 2018 Decision Left Unresolved Practical Implications Extent of Use International Approaches Broader Surveillance Landscape What’s Really at Stake Timeline and Next Steps In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that police need a warrant to track your movements through your cell phone records. The decision seemed like a watershed moment for digital privacy —a recognition that the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches had to evolve alongside technology. Eight years later, we’re finding out just how much that case left unresolved. On January 16, 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Chatrie v. United States , a case that will determine whether police can collect detailed location histories for hundreds or thousands of innocent people in order to identify potential suspe…

BREAKING 🚨 🚨 🚨 US supreme court rules geofence warrants require constitutional privacy protections Law enforcement’s use of warrants sweeping smartphone location data requires privacy protections, court rules www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026...

Now 81° Tue 86° Wed 90° Armstrong Williams takes on the news of the week and asks the questions you want answered. Don’t miss our weekly town hall! byNATALIA MITTELSTADT | The National News Desk WASHINGTON (TNND) —The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of privacy protections for cellphone users' location history in the case of a bank robber whose identity was discovered through a geofence warrant. In the 6-3 decision, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that people do not forfeit expectations of privacy even when they opt into Google’s location history,The Associated Press reported. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his dissent that the robber, Okello Chatrie, did not have the expectation of privacy with information he voluntarily turned over to Google. After a bankrobberyin a suburb of Richmond, Va., police obtained a geofence warrant and used it to locate cellphones that were near the crime scene in May 2019. One of those phones near the bank belonged to Chatrie, who had eluded the police until that point. When investigators determined that Chatrie was among those near the Call Federal Credit Union in Midlothian at the time, police obtained a search warrant for his home, where …