High Court to Rule on “Dragnet” Geofence Warrants and the Fourth Amendment

WASHINGTON — In a move that could redefine digital privacy for millions of Americans, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday, January 16, 2026, to decide whether “geofence” warrants—broad sweeps of location data used to identify everyone near a crime scene—violate the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The case, United States v. Chatrie, stems from the 2019 robbery of a credit union in Midlothian, Virginia. To identify a suspect, investigators obtained a warrant compelling Google to provide location data for every device within a 150-meter radius of the bank during a one-hour window. This “dragnet” eventually led police to Okello Chatrie, who was convicted and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

The Constitutional Clash: Privacy vs. Policing

At the heart of the dispute is the Fourth Amendment, which requires that warrants be supported by probable cause and describe with particularity the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

• The Defense Argument: Chatrie’s attorneys argue that geofence warrants are “general warrants”—a type of broad, exploratory search the Founding Fathers specifically intended to ban. They contend that by scooping up data on every person in an area, the government invades the privacy of dozens, or even thousands, of innocent bystanders without individual suspicion.
• The Government’s Stance: Prosecutors argue that users “voluntarily” share their location data with companies like Google when they opt into certain services, meaning they have no “reasonable expectation of privacy” under the Third-Party Doctrine. They liken the data to “digital tire tracks” left at a public crime scene.

A Deepening Divide in the Courts

The Supreme Court’s intervention follows a sharp split between federal appeals courts:

• The 5th Circuit: Ruled in 2024 that geofence warrants are inherently unconstitutional because they require a search of a provider’s entire database to find matches, making them “categorically” overbroad.
• The 4th Circuit: In Chatrie’s case, the court upheld the conviction. While some judges were wary of the technology, they ultimately ruled that the evidence was admissible under the “good faith exception,” which allows evidence to be used if police believed they were acting on a valid warrant.

The “Carpenter” Precedent

The justices will weigh the case against their landmark 2018 ruling in Carpenter v. United States, where they held that the government generally needs a warrant to access long-term cell-site location records. Chatrie will determine if that privacy protection extends to short-term, highly precise GPS data harvested from tech giants.

Since the robbery, Google has moved to change how it stores location data, shifting it to users’ individual devices to make responding to such warrants more difficult. However, the ruling will still set a vital precedent for how law enforcement can—or cannot—use “reverse” search techniques involving other tech companies and data brokers.

Arguments are expected to be heard in the spring, with a final decision likely by June 2026.

Top Stories