Okello T. Chatrie, Petitioner v. United States

Police used a geofence warrant to make Google provide location-history data for every device near a Virginia credit-union robbery and then narrowed that data to identify a suspect. The Supreme Court said that search exceeded Fourth Amendment limits and sent the case back to the lower court.

The Court ruled for Chatrie, said the geofence search in this case exceeded Fourth Amendment limits, and returned the case to the lower court. The prompt does not provide the vote count or opinion lineup.

The decision puts limits on broad geofence warrants that sweep up many people's location data at once. Police, prosecutors, tech companies, and ordinary phone users will all be affected when investigators seek digital location records.

The case now goes back to the lower court for further proceedings under the Supreme Court's decision. Lower courts and investigators will have to adjust how they evaluate and use geofence warrants and similar bulk location-data requests.

Police made Google turn over location-history data for all devices within about 150 meters of the credit union. They then narrowed that pool to track a suspect.

Investigators may face tighter limits before seeking broad location dragnets from Google or similar companies. People near a crime scene get stronger protection for stored location history.

The case returns to the lower court for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's decision. Judges must resolve the remaining issues using the Court's Fourth Amendment ruling.