AI Policy Wiki
Dashboard

Chatrie v. United States

medium confidence · updated 2026-07-03

US Supreme Court decision (June 29, 2026) holding that law enforcement's use of a geofence warrant to obtain cellphone location data is a Fourth Amendment search.

FieldValue
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DocketNo. 25-112
DecidedJune 29, 2026
Vote6–3
HoldingUse of a geofence warrant to obtain cellphone location data is a Fourth Amendment search
DispositionRemanded for further proceedings on the warrant's validity

Chatrie v. United States is a US Supreme Court case on geofence warrants — court orders compelling technology companies to identify devices present in a defined area during a defined time window, drawing on stored location data. On June 29, 2026, the Court ruled 6–3 that law enforcement's use of a geofence warrant to obtain cellphone location data constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, and remanded the case for further proceedings on whether the warrant used was valid (Source: scotusblog.com; supremecourt.gov).

Background

The case arose from a 2019 bank-robbery investigation in which investigators used a geofence warrant to obtain location data for devices near the crime scene, identifying Okello Chatrie as a suspect. Geofence warrants query location databases assembled from smartphone operating systems and apps, and their use had divided lower courts on whether such queries are Fourth Amendment searches requiring particularized warrants.

Decision

The Court held that obtaining cellphone location data through a geofence warrant is a search, extending the digital-privacy line of cases that includes Carpenter v. United States (2018) on cell-site location information. The 6–3 decision did not resolve whether the specific warrant was valid; that question was remanded (Source: scotusblog.com).

Relation to AI policy

Geofence queries are an instance of automated, database-scale surveillance of the kind addressed in AI and Surveillance and AI and Privacy: the technique depends on algorithmic search over mass location datasets rather than individualized observation. The decision constrains a data-driven investigative technique and bears on how courts treat other bulk-analytic tools used by law enforcement.

Relationships