Supreme Court Signals Tightened Rules on Police Use of Cellphone Tracking Data

The Supreme Court’s Monday hearing in Chatrie v. United States revealed deep skepticism among justices about law enforcement’s ability to track individuals using cellphone data without strict constitutional safeguards. The case centers on whether police must obtain a warrant before accessing location data to identify suspects near a crime scene.

In the first half of arguments, justices questioned Adam Unikowsky, the defense attorney, about the limits of government surveillance. Many appeared ready to overturn or narrow Carpenter v. United States (2018), which requires warrants for historical cellphone location data. However, the second half of the hearing took a sharp turn when Eric Feigin, a Department of Justice lawyer, presented arguments that alarmed the justices.

Chief Justice John Roberts warned that unchecked cellphone tracking could reveal the identities of everyone at a religious service or political meeting. Other justices expressed concerns that Feigin’s position would allow police to search emails, calendars, and photos without warrants. These objections suggest the Court may issue a cautious ruling reinforcing the need for warrants in such cases.

Despite these concerns, the Court may ultimately uphold the warrant used in Chatrie’s case, as police did obtain one. The decision is expected to be narrow, preserving existing privacy protections without major expansions. The case specifically involves “geofence” warrants, which allow police to identify individuals within a defined area at a specific time using cellphone data.

In Chatrie, Virginia police obtained a warrant requiring Google to provide location data for devices within a 150-meter radius of a robbed bank in Midlothian. The area included both the bank and a nearby church. Google’s data revealed that the defendant’s phone was in the vicinity during the crime, leading to his conviction. The Supreme Court’s ruling could redefine the boundaries of digital privacy and law enforcement access to such data.