What Happened?

When police investigate a crime, they usually start with a suspect. Geofence warrants flip that process: law enforcement asks a tech company, often Google, to hand over data on every device that was in a specific location during a specific window of time, then works backward to find a suspect. [](#ngr-5575166d-3b12-4566-9872-0a17096c4762)

The Supreme Court ruled June 29 in Chatrie v. United States that pulling that location data counts as a search under the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans from unreasonable government searches. But the court sent the case back to a lower court without deciding whether the warrant used in that case actually met constitutional standards, leaving the central legal question unresolved.

A new report from the nonpartisan agency that provides legal and policy analysis to Congress examines where the law now stands on these reverse warrants, including a related tool called a keyword warrant, which asks companies like Google to identify users who searched for specific terms.

Why Does it Matter to Me?

Your phone likely generates location data constantly. If you use Google Maps, store location history, or carry a smartphone, your device could show up in a geofence request tied to a crime scene you happened to walk past.

Google received approximately 9,000 geofence requests in 2019. By 2021, those requests made up more than 25 percent of all warrants Google received in the United States. Google also processes roughly 400 reverse-keyword warrants per year.

Google's process works in three stages:

  • First, it provides police with an anonymized list of devices in the area.
  • Then, it narrows to a smaller group with more location detail.
  • Finally, it discloses account-identifying information for the remaining devices.

That means your name and account could eventually reach law enforcement even if you were never a suspect.

Both Sides, Now

The core disagreement is whether existing warrant rules are strong enough to protect innocent people caught in these broad data drags, or whether the tools are a necessary part of modern investigations.

In the Chatrie case, seven judges found the data collection was a Fourth Amendment search. Five of those judges said the warrant lacked probable cause. Only one judge would have thrown out the evidence entirely. The other six said a "good-faith exception," which protects officers who rely on a warrant they reasonably believed was valid, applied.

Congress has taken notice from both directions. Then-House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan sent a 2023 letter to the attorney general asking about geofence warrants used in January 6 investigations. Sen. Alex Padilla sent a 2022 letter urging Google to limit location data collection in the context of abortion-related investigations.

Some states have moved on their own. Utah requires a search warrant for geofence data and restricts keyword warrants. Washington bars private entities from placing geofences around health care facilities. Measures were proposed or pending in Vermont, New York, Missouri, Delaware, and California.

What Happens Next?

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals must now decide whether the warrant in the Chatrie case met the Fourth Amendment's probable-cause and particularity requirements.

The legal status of keyword warrants remains unsettled. No federal appeals court has yet ruled on whether obtaining that data is even a search under the Constitution, meaning that question could take years to resolve.

Congress could also act. Lawmakers have the power to pass legislation setting clear warrant rules for both tools, but no bill has been scheduled for a vote.

---

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article