Supreme Court Limits Geofence Warrants in Fourth Amendment Ruling

On June 29, 2026 the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling authored by Justice Elena Kagan, held that the collection of cellphone location data via a geofence warrant is a search protected by the Fourth Amendment. The case, *Chatrie v. United States*, stemmed from a 2019 armed robbery of a Midlothian, Virginia credit union where the suspect stole $195,000. Police obtained a warrant covering phones within a 150-meter (? 492-foot) radius of the bank for a one-hour period. Nineteen devices, including that of Okello Chatrie, were initially identified; investigators later recovered about $100,000 in cash, two demand notes and a pistol. The Court sent the matter back to the Fourth Circuit to determine whether the warrant met the required particularity and probable-cause standards.

Reuters

The decision marks a clear limit on mass digital surveillance. Tech firms such as Apple, Lyft, Snapchat and Uber may need to adjust data-retention policies, while Google has already shifted to storing location history on users’ devices rather than a central server. Law-enforcement agencies must now secure narrowly tailored warrants, reducing the appeal of broad geofence searches. The Justice Department’s Eric Feigin argued that Chatrie’s opt-in to Google’s location-history waived any privacy claim, and the Trump administration defended the method as essential for investigations. Civil-liberties attorney Brett Max Kaufman hailed the ruling as “critical protection against invasive and overbroad government searches,” whereas Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. warned that the majority’s view “will send seismic waves through our Fourth Amendment doctrine.”

Supreme Court limits use of 'geofence warrants' amid cellphone data privacy concerns

Sources disagree on the exact geofence radius—some describe it as 150 yards, others as 150 meters—and on the device count, reporting either 19 total or 18 additional users. The Court left the precise warrant standards undefined, tasking lower courts with clarifying particularity and probable-cause requirements.

The Supreme Court says police can no longer subpoena companies like Apple using ‘geofence warrants’

• “[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 Elena Kagan

The Supreme Court says police can no longer subpoena companies like Apple using ‘geofence warrants’

• “I cannot support this irresponsible escapade.” — Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

New York Times

• “Law enforcement and courts are on notice that new technology does not open up surveillance loopholes, and strict adherence to the Fourth Amendment’s protections is required,” — Brett Max Kaufman, ACLU Center for Democracy

Supreme Court limits use of 'geofence warrants' amid cellphone data privacy concerns

• “This decision sets the right direction for user privacy: carrying a phone and using apps -- doing the ordinary things cellphone users do -- does not compromise your rights,” — Greg Nojeim, Center for Democracy & Technology

Supreme Court limits use of 'geofence warrants' amid cellphone data privacy concerns

The Fourth Circuit will reassess whether the geofence warrant satisfied Fourth Amendment particularity and probable-cause standards. Tech companies are reviewing data-storage policies, and law-enforcement agencies are drafting narrower warrant templates, setting the stage for future litigation on digital-search boundaries.

The Supreme Court says police can no longer subpoena companies like Apple using ‘geofence warrants’