by John P. Carlin, Elizabeth Hanft, David Ok. Kessler and Ian C. Richardson
Left to Proper: John P. Carlin, Elizabeth Hanft, David Ok. Kessler and Ian C. Richardson (pictures courtesy of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP)
On January 16, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Courtroom in Chatrie v. United States agreed to assessment the constitutionality of “geofence warrants,” or courtroom orders that require “a service supplier to supply location knowledge from mobile phone customers who have been close to the scene when against the law occurred.”[1] Federal courts of enchantment are cut up over the constitutionality of such warrants. The Supreme Courtroom’s choice on this case may have far-reaching implications for knowledge privateness requirements, regulation enforcement practices, and the processes by which know-how and telecommunications firms handle consumer location knowledge.
- First assessment of geofence warrants. That is the Supreme Courtroom’s first assessment of geofence warrants, a step that alerts the potential for additional scrutiny of regulation enforcement strategies geared toward bulk knowledge assortment.
- Fork within the street for regulation enforcement. A choice holding that geofence warrants violate the Fourth Modification, or in any other case limiting their use, may restrict regulation enforcement’s capability to acquire people’ location data from personal firms, whereas a choice authorizing geofence warrants may sign a extra permissive method to regulation enforcement searches of knowledge held within the cloud by know-how firms.
- Authorities entry to knowledge collected and maintained by personal enterprise. The case will give the Supreme Courtroom an opportunity to weigh in on a side of the rising public coverage debate across the delicate buyer data collected and maintained by personal firms, the laws governing the gathering of such data, and on the federal government’s capability to entry it to research violations of regulation.
Geofence warrants, also referred to as reverse location warrants, enable regulation enforcement to compel tech firms that gather and preserve location knowledge about their customers, similar to some e mail and cloud service suppliers, to offer figuring out details about their customers showing inside an outlined geographical space throughout a specified time window. Legislation enforcement’s use of all these warrants has grown quickly in recent times, and has led to criticism due to the distinctive privateness issues that they elevate.
In contrast to conventional warrants, a geofence warrant doesn’t identify a selected individual or machine to be searched. For instance, a geofence warrant may require a tech firm to determine all of its customers situated inside 1,000 yards of the situation of an alleged crime inside a one-hour interval bracketing the time when the crime was believed to have been dedicated. By casting a large internet, geofence warrants might help regulation enforcement determine potential suspects, however they accomplish that by sweeping in knowledge from many individuals with no connection to against the law, elevating privateness issues.[2]
Chatrie v. United States arises from a 2019 financial institution theft investigation in Virginia.[3] Police obtained a geofence warrant overlaying the world close to the financial institution throughout a two-hour window bracketing the time of the alleged theft. The service supplier’s response to the geofence warrant proceeded in three levels. First, the service supplier produced anonymized location and motion data related to every of the gadgets for its customers inside the geofence. Second, regulation enforcement reviewed the anonymized manufacturing and recognized “gadgets of curiosity,” for which the service supplier supplied extra contextual location data. Lastly, based mostly on this extra context, regulation enforcement narrowed the listing of suspicious gadgets then compelled the corporate to disclose figuring out subscriber data for 3 customers.[4] The defendant, Okello Chatrie, was recognized via this course of and arrested after police discovered stolen money and a firearm in his dwelling.
On enchantment, the U.S. Courtroom of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the federal government had not performed a “search” inside the which means of the Fourth Modification through the use of the geofence warrant as a result of Chatrie had voluntarily uncovered his knowledge to the service supplier.[5] Upon rehearing en banc, the Fourth Circuit issued 9 separate opinions on the underlying constitutionality of the observe, finally affirming solely on the premise that the proof shouldn’t be suppressed in mild of the great religion exception to the exclusionary rule.
In a subsequent choice in a later case earlier than the U.S. Courtroom of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the courtroom was offered with the same case concerning the constitutional implications of a geofence warrant and rejected the Fourth Circuit panel’s conclusion that “geofencing just isn’t a ‘search’ topic to the Fourth Modification.”[6] The disagreement between the Fourth and Fifth Circuit choices arrange a cut up that the Supreme Courtroom could resolve.
On January 16, 2026, the Supreme Courtroom granted Chatrie’s request to contemplate his case and agreed to reply a single query: “Whether or not the execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Modification.”[7] This grants the Courtroom a possibility to resolve the uncertainty over these warrants’ constitutionality.
In in search of Supreme Courtroom assessment, Chatrie focused the multi-stage course of used to execute a geofence warrant, arguing that the federal government’s use and execution of the geofence warrant constituted a Fourth Modification search and that the warrant and its execution have been unconstitutional as a result of they lacked possible trigger and particularity, particularly as a result of officers de-anonymized gadgets with out acquiring a second warrant or any intervening judicial assessment.[8] The Authorities, then again, argued there was no Fourth Modification “search” as a result of customers voluntarily opted into the service supplier’s location historical past and the warrant sought solely a slender quantity of knowledge that was restricted by time and placement.[9]
A Supreme Courtroom choice concerning the constitutionality of geofence warrants may have an effect on firms that gather or maintain consumer location knowledge—particularly tech firms, app builders, and telecommunications suppliers.
- Affect on geofence warrants. If the Courtroom guidelines that the execution of the geofence warrant at subject in Chatrie violates the Fourth Modification, the choice may reshape regulation enforcement’s procedures for acquiring location data as a part of a legal investigation, whereas a choice upholding the usage of geofence warrants would enable regulation enforcement to proceed utilizing the device.
- Broader results. Supreme Courtroom choices usually have implications that reach past the factual and authorized points offered in a person case. The reasoning the Courtroom makes use of to achieve its choice might be simply as vital, if no more, than the choice the Courtroom makes within the case. The Courtroom’s software of Fourth Modification rules to location knowledge collected by and saved on a non-public firm’s servers may have vital implications for a way courts perceive and defend particular person privateness pursuits in such knowledge.
- For instance, a ruling that limits geofence warrants may additionally name into query different investigative instruments similar to key phrase warrants—the place an organization could be requested to determine anybody who searched sure phrases—or different surveillance orders.[10] The choice may create alternatives for firms to contemplate difficult these and different types of authorized course of utilized by regulation enforcement.
- Against this, a ruling that limits judicial assessment of geofence warrants may spur requires legislative motion to restrict their use.
- Trade observe. Relying on the end result and the reasoning of the choice, know-how and telecommunications firms could take into account reassessing their insurance policies and practices across the assortment and storage of location and different delicate details about particular person customers. Choices could embody storing customers’ location historical past solely on a consumer’s machine (not within the cloud) and shortening the time interval for which such knowledge is retained. There may be already proof that some firms have taken regulation enforcement’s use of geofence warrants to acquire consumer location data into consideration in creating merchandise and delivering companies to customers.
- For instance, one main know-how firm has acknowledged in its public transparency stories that whereas it has acquired geofence warrants, it doesn’t preserve any knowledge to offer in response to geofence warrants.
- One other main know-how firm introduced modifications to its location knowledge practices particularly to blunt geofence requests in 2023.
If Chatrie is heard this time period, the Supreme Courtroom’s choice might be issued by June 2026. This case has far reaching implications. In preparation for the choice, know-how and telecommunications firms can take this chance to evaluate their present method to dealing with such knowledge and responding to regulation enforcement requests and take into account how the choice may have an effect on that method going ahead.
- Corporations can take into account auditing how they gather, retailer, and share location knowledge and consider knowledge minimization practices (e.g., shorter retention intervals, on-device storage).
- Corporations can take into account creating or updating normal working procedures for dealing with authorities knowledge requests, together with by coaching or refreshing authorized and IT groups on figuring out requests that could be broader than licensed by regulation and establishing protocols for direct communication with the requesting company when acceptable.
- Corporations can take into account whether or not to reinforce privateness governance by updating privateness notices, publishing transparency stories, or proactively participating with regulation enforcement, privateness officers and regulators.
John P. Carlin, Elizabeth Hanft, David Ok. Kessler and Ian C. Richardson are Companions at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. Matthew J. Disler, Rachel Gallagher, Corey J. Goldstein, Jordan E. Orosz, Brandon G. Rosenberg, Jacob R. Schulz are Associates at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP who additionally contributed to this text. This memo first appeared as a shopper alert for the agency.
The views, opinions and positions expressed inside all posts are these of the creator(s) alone and don’t characterize these of the Program on Company Compliance and Enforcement (PCCE) or of the New York College College of Legislation. PCCE makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness and validity or any statements made on this web site and won’t be liable any errors, omissions or representations. The copyright of this content material belongs to the creator(s) and any legal responsibility close to infringement of mental property rights stays with the creator(s).
Footnotes
[1] United States v. Chatrie, 136 F.4th 100, 102 (4th Cir. 2025) (Diaz, C.J., concurring), cert. granted, 2026 WL 120676 (U.S. Jan. 16, 2026) (No. 25-112).
[2] See Jackie O’Neil, A lot Ado About Geofence Warrants, Harvard Legislation Assessment (Feb. 18, 2025), accessible right here.
[3] See United States v. Chatrie, 107 F.4th 319 (4th Cir. 2024).
[4] Temporary for Google LLC as Amicus Curiae Supporting Neither Social gathering, United States v. Chatrie, 590 F. Supp. 3d 901 (E.D. Va. 2022) (subsequent historical past omitted).
[5] United States v. Chatrie, 107 F.4th 319 (4th Cir. 2024), aff’d en banc, 136 F.4th 100 (4th Cir. 2025).
[6] United States v. Smith, 110 F.4th 817, 835 (fifth Cir. 2024) (citing Chatrie, 107 F.4th at 331-32).
[7] Grant of Cert., Chatrie v. United Sates, No. 25-112 (Jan. 16, 2026), accessible right here.
[8] Petition for Writ of Cert., Chatrie, No. 25-112 (U.S. filed Nov. 24, 2025), accessible right here.
[9] Temporary for the US in Opposition, Chatrie v. United States, No. 25-112 (U.S. filed Nov. 24, 2025), accessible right here.
[10] See Reverse Search Warrants, Nat’l Ass’n Crim. Legal guidelines. (final accessed Jan. 17, 2026), accessible right here.
