Can being near a crime scene become a reason to search your phone?
Editorial visualization for A geofence warrant at the Supreme Court tests the limit of location surveillance📷 AI-generated image / TECH&SPACE
- ★Police sought Google data for devices within 300 meters of a Richmond robbery
- ★Google Maps Location History could refresh location every two minutes with roughly three-meter precision
- ★The ruling could shape reverse-search rules for other location services
A SEARCH THAT STARTS WITHOUT A NAME
A 2019 robbery at the Call Federal Credit Union outside Richmond, Virginia is now much larger than one criminal case. In Chatrie v. United States, the Supreme Court is considering whether police may use a geofence warrant that asks Google for data on everyone who was within a defined area around a crime scene.
The key difference from a conventional search is the order of operations. Police did not begin with the name, device, or account of a known suspect. They requested data for devices within 300 meters of the credit union during the robbery window, then filtered their way to Okello Chatrie.
The source says Google Maps Location History could identify location within roughly three meters and refresh every two minutes. That precision turns ordinary proximity into an investigative signal. Chatrie's attorneys argue that this was an unreasonable search and a Fourth Amendment violation; the government treats it as a warrant that led investigators to a suspect.
Chatrie v. United States asks whether police can start with every nearby phone and identify a suspect afterward.
Secondary editorial visualization for A geofence warrant at the Supreme Court tests the limit of location surveillance📷 AI-generated image / TECH&SPACE
GOOGLE'S CHANGE DOES NOT CLOSE THE LEGAL QUESTION
Google stopped storing Maps users' Location History in the cloud in 2024, citing privacy. Some justices therefore asked why the court should decide an issue tied to a feature that no longer exists in the same form. But the problem did not disappear with one Google policy change.
The Verge notes that other companies still collect location data, including ride-hailing services, social apps, and many mobile services. If the Supreme Court broadly validates these warrants, police gain a precedent for reverse searches that do not begin with individualized suspicion, but with a digital map of presence.
Lower courts have already split the logic. One court accepted that the warrant lacked enough individualized probable cause, but allowed the evidence under the good-faith exception. The appeals court went further and found no Fourth Amendment violation because Chatrie had voluntarily shared location information with Google.
The ruling expected in the coming months will therefore say more than what happened to one phone near one bank. It will define whether the state may first collect a pool of people, then choose a suspect from it. In a society where location is quietly logged by dozens of apps, that is the difference between targeted investigation and suspicion by proximity.
