Daring Fireball: The Supreme Court Rules That Law Enforcement’s Use of ‘Geofence Warrant’ Was a ‘Search’ (But May Be Moot, Technically, Since 2024)

By John Gruber

Archive

The Talk Show

Dithering

Projects

Contact

Colophon

Feeds / Social

Twitter

--><br>Sponsorship

Day One — The journal you actually keep. Start with a chat, end with a journal entry. ⭐ 4.8 (400k)

The Supreme Court Rules That Law Enforcement’s Use of ‘Geofence Warrant’ Was a ‘Search’ (But May Be Moot, Technically, Since 2024)

Tuesday, 30 June 2026

Amy Howe, writing at the ever-excellent SCOTUSblog:

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that when law enforcement<br>officials used a “geofence warrant” — a warrant that instructed<br>Google to provide location data for cellphone users who were near<br>a particular place during a specific time period — to obtain<br>evidence used to convict a Virginia man of a 2019 bank robbery,<br>they conducted a “search” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. By<br>a vote of 6-3, the justices sent Okello Chatrie’s case back to the<br>lower court for it to consider whether, as the Fourth Amendment<br>requires, the search was “reasonable.”

Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan emphasized that<br>“[a]n individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in<br>records about his cell phone’s location, and police intrude on<br>that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the<br>information — even though for only a limited time, and from a<br>third-party tech company.” [...]

The issue at the center of Chatrie v. United States arose<br>after a man armed with a gun entered a federal credit union<br>outside Richmond, Virginia, and gave the teller a note demanding<br>money. He made off with nearly $200,000, but law enforcement<br>officials did not have any leads until they served Google with a<br>geofence warrant, which directed the tech company to provide<br>location data for cellphone users who were near the bank at the<br>time of the robbery.

I agree, wholeheartedly, with the decision. Howe’s coverage, being at SCOTUSblog, is unsurprisingly concerned with the legal aspects. But I’m also fascinated by the technical aspects. It’s remarkable — and regrettable — that Google had this geofence information in the first place. The data was part of a grossly invasive and ill-conceived feature Google called “Location History”, and was used to power a feature called “Timeline” in Google Maps. The data was stored unencrypted by Google in the cloud, tied to your Google account, thus making it available to these geofence warrants.

Back in December 2023 Google announced that it was changing the way it stored this data, defaulting instead to on-device storage and using end-to-end encryption (that Google itself cannot decrypt) for location data it holds online. This change had long been advocated by the EFF, which celebrated Google’s policy change. (Notably, Chatrie robbed that credit union in 2019.)

Most people have an unshakeable belief in the widely-held misconception that “everything” we do — everywhere we go, even everything we say — in the presence of our phones is tracked and recorded, and traceable back to us individually. It’s not at all ridiculous that this belief is so common, given that it is technically feasible. Our phones are precise GPS devices, they do have good microphones, and they are (almost) always connected to cellular and/or Wi-Fi networks. And the surveillance advertising industrial complex — primarily Meta and Google — is so uncannily good at serving ads based on our recent personal interests that the most obvious explanation for how they do it is “they listen to us and track us and record everything we do”. That’s not how they do it. But “they listen to us and track us and record everything we do” is an explanation that everyone can easily understand. If that were how Meta and Google served targeted ads to us, everyone could understand how the ads are so often so uncannily and creepily accurate. The way it actually works is complex and complicated, and thus in the realm of Arthur C. Clarke’s maxim that “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. Incorrect explanations that people understand resonate and take hold and become entrenched beliefs; correct explanations that people don’t understand are dismissed and are not believed. (Exhibit A: evolution.) This is why it is such a precious gift to be able to explain complex technical and scientific subject matter in ways that many people can understand.1

And lo, now here’s a Supreme Court case showing that when the police asked for a list of people whose phones were near a particular bank at a particular time on a particular day, Google had that information and handed it over. Chatrie v. United States is not a particularly celebrated case, but this will only contribute to the entrenching of superstitious incorrect conspiracy theories about the data that “they” — big tech companies — collect about us.

But Google no longer collects this information in a way that is...