Contact Us
Please fill out the form below and one of our attorneys will contact you.
Office Location
Reviews & Ratings
- posted: Feb. 06, 2025
- Criminal Defense
For decades, police investigators have obtained warrants to tap the phones of individuals suspected of criminal misconduct. To do this lawfully, a judge must find probable cause exists that the targeted person is, or has been, involved in criminal activity and the warrant must be narrowly tailored to protect the privacy of individuals not named in the warrant. Now, technology gives authorities the ability to pinpoint a particular location and time, and use information from cellphones to see who was there. This is referred to as a “geofence,” and there is a sharp difference of opinion about whether a warrant seeking this information is permissible under the Fourth Amendment.
Geofence warrants compel companies, often tech giants such as Google, to provide anonymized location data for all devices detected in the specified area. Investigators then analyze this data to identify potential suspects. While these warrants have proven effective in certain criminal cases, even federal courts have disagreed about their constitutional validity.
One such case is the prosecution of Okello Chatrie, who was accused of robbing a bank in Richmond, Virginia. Investigators requested and received a warrant requiring Google to disclose one hour of anonymized location data from devices within 150 meters of the crime scene. From the initial data set of 19 accounts, investigators zeroed in on Chatrie.
Chatrie challenged the use of the geofence warrant, arguing that it violated his Fourth Amendment rights, which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. He claimed the warrant was overly broad, capturing data from innocent individuals alongside potential suspects. Although the Virginia district court agreed with his constitutional concerns, it admitted the evidence because investigators believed they were acting under a valid warrant.
The Fourth Circuit initially upheld this decision, but has now agreed to rehear the case en banc. This legal review is pivotal, as critics argue that these warrants amount to unconstitutional fishing expeditions, while proponents contend they are indispensable tools for modern policing. The outcome of the Fourth Circuit’s review could have a significant effect on criminal law jurisprudence around the country, and could trigger intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court.
For individuals charged with crimes involving geofence evidence, navigating these uncharted legal waters requires skilled legal counsel. Hiring an attorney who understands, and keeps up with, the latest developments concerning digital privacy and constitutional protections is essential to mounting an effective defense.
Polansky Law Firm in Boulder handles all types of federal and state criminal defense matters, including cases involving novel and complex legal questions. Please call 303-415-2583 or contact us online for a free consultation.
