Ryan Soh | Is Geofence Warrant Evidence Admissible Under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution?

Background

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects U.S. citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, and further provides that warrants must be backed by probable cause. The government cannot violate a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy” under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 406 (2012).

In May 2019, Okello Chatrie robbed a bank in Midlothian, VA. Detective Hylton obtained a geofence warrant, and subsequently received information from Google in relation to the robbery. Specifically, he requested that Google send him anonymous location data for every device in a 150-meter radius from the bank during a one-hour window in which the robbery occurred. After narrowing down this list, Hylton then obtained personal information from the refined list of travel outside the 150-meter radius for a two-hour window. Using this data, Chatrie was identified as a suspect and indicted. Chatrie moved to suppress evidence obtained from the geofence warrant, arguing that it violated the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Chatrie, 590 F. Supp. 3d 901, 905 (E.D. Va. 2022).

Issue

Whether evidence gathered via a geofence warrant is admissible in court.
The Split

The Fourth and Eleventh Circuits

In United States v. Chatrie, the Fourth Circuit ruled the geofence warrant evidence was admissible. At first, the court said the geofence warrant evidence was not admissible because the geofence warrant lacked probable cause. In their view, obtaining information on people who were simply in the vicinity of the bank at the time of the burglary did not constitute probable cause. However, the Fourth Circuit held that because detective Hylton consulted with government attorneys, obtained similar warrants in the past, and because the warrant was not facially deficient, the good faith exception applied. This meant the geofence warrant evidence was admissible.

The Eleventh Circuit also ruled geofence warrant evidence was admissible in United States v. Davis. However, their reasoning was different. Here, the court ruled the geofence warrant evidence was admissible “because the search did not disclose any information about the data on his own electronic device, reflected only his limited movements in public areas, and did not encompass his home.” United States v. Davis, 109 F.4th 1320, 1324 (11th Cir. 2024). Essentially, the court found that, in this case, the geofence warrant was specific enough to admit its evidence into the court.

The Fifth Circuit

The Fifth Circuit classified geofence warrants as a general warrant, which are categorically banned under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Smith, 110 F.4th 817 (5th Cir. 2024). Therefore, the court ruled geofence warrants were unconstitutional and thus the evidence obtained from them was inadmissible in court. The court’s reasoning was that if law enforcement was allowed to track phones, this is similar to everyone wearing an ankle monitor, given that virtually everyone has a phone which they take everywhere.

Looking Forward

There has been an increase in geofence warrant requests over the last several years. As tracking technology improves, we may continue to see more geofence warrant cases, elevating its potential Supreme Court impact if they decide to take up certiorari on this issue.

Find Ryan on LinkedIn!