Apr 30, 2026
Okello Chatrie pulled off an armed robbery, stealing close to $200K from a bank in suburban Richmond, Virginia. And if the police hadn't turned on technology that found the cellular devices in that area at the time of the crime, he may have gotten away with it.
It's known as a geofence warrant and it's used to find suspects based on location data collected by companies such as Google. Geofence warrants were used in the January 6 riots in the Capitol, as well as various unsolved cases in several states, according to PBS (1).
Advertisement
Chatrie is arguing the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment and that he had a reasonable expectation that his location data would be kept private. The case made it to the high court, where justices appear divided on the issue (2).
With standard warrants, police identify a suspect before obtaining a warrant to search a home or cellphone. With geofence warrants, police use location data to find possible suspects. This includes data from innocent people who were just at the wrong place at the wrong time.
According to SCOTUSblog, Google handed over a list of 19 accounts (but not the names) linked to devices that were within 150 meters of the bank during the 30 minutes before and after the robbery (2). Law enforcement then asked for information for nine accounts that were in the area during a two-hour period. Then, names and information were supplied for three specific accounts, one being Chatrie’s.
Browsing for suspects
In 2018, a year before the robbery, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that police need a warrant to obtain cellular site location data from mobile phone companies, the Washington Post reported (3). The majority found that time-stamped data provides an intimate window into a person's life, revealing not only his particular movements, but through them his "familial, political, professional, religious and sexual associations."
Now, the court is deciding on Google data. Google no longer stores location history on its servers and cannot respond to geofence warrants, as stated in the Post article. As Justice Samual Alito stated on April 27 (2), "Google now stores the location history on devices themselves, rather than in its own database."
Because Chatrie had his location data turned on, the government argues that he volunteered this information and no warrant was needed. However, location data is notoriously hard to opt out of on some apps, with privacy policies intentionally convoluted.
Advertisement
A quick scan of Uber's privacy policy reveals the app "may collect GPS location information from the mobile devices of its drivers and riders. Riders have the option in their device settings to opt out of the collection of their GPS information, and if they choose to do so, the rider's GPS will not be captured (4).
"Available GPS location information may be obtained with a search warrant or pursuant to an emergency disclosure request only."
Must Read
- Dave Ramsey warns nearly 50% of Americans are making 1 big Social Security mistake — are you doing the same?
- Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how
- Robert Kiyosaki says this 1 asset will surge 400% in a year and begs investors not to miss this ‘explosion’
Join 250,000+ readers and get Moneywise’s best stories and exclusive interviews first — clear insights curated and delivered weekly. Subscribe now.
Brush up on personal data hygiene
However the court ends up ruling in the Chatrie case, this is yet another example of how the Fourth Amendment applies to emerging technologies. With the explosion of artificial intelligence, we're likely to see a lot more ambiguous cases in the future.
While this case might feel far off for everyday Americans, it's a good reminder to revisit your phone settings and check what data is collected and stored. Most apps have data capture turned on by default, so you'll need to do some digging to deactivate.
You might have to forego some convenience, but if data privacy is more important, it's a small compromise. You don't have to be doing anything wrong to care about keeping your personal data as private as possible.
Article Sources
We rely only on vetted sources and credible third-party reporting. For details, see our ethics and guidelines.
PBS (1); SCOTUSblog (2); Washington Post (3); Uber (4).
You May Also Like
- Turning 50 with $0 saved for retirement? Most people don’t realize they’re actually just entering their prime earning decade. Here are 6 ways to catch up fast
- Inside a $1B real estate fund offering access to thousands of income-producing rental properties — with flexible minimums starting at $10
- Vanguard’s outlook on U.S. stocks is raising alarm bells for retirees. Here’s why and how to protect yourself
- Here are 5 easy ways to own multiple properties like Bezos and Beyoncé. You can start with $10 (and no, you don’t have to manage a single thing)
Amanda Smith is an Australian freelance journalist and writer based in the New York City area who reports on culture/society, technology, and health.
