Geofence search warrants can get you Fourth Amendment search protection, says Fairfax criminal defense lawyer

Geofence search warrants can get you Fourth Amendment Constitutional search protections. As a Fairfax criminal defense lawyer, I know that to be so from the five-justice majority opinion in Chatrie v. United States, ___ U.S. ___ (June 29, 2026), which includes a spirited dissent by three justices and a concurrence from a fourth. Chatrie is a follow up from Carpenter v. United States, 585 U. S. 296 (2018) (where governmental acquisition of Carpenter’s cell-site records was deemed a Fourth Amendment search) and Riley v. California, 573 U. S. 373 (2014) (requiring a search warrant for a cellphone search, absent search consent or exigent circumstances). Chatrie also citers to Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 351 (1967) (no close relationship to me that I know of), which “recognized that ‘the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.’ And so we have long held that ‘property rights are not the sole measure’ of a constitutional violation; the Fourth Amendment ‘protect[s] certain expectations of privacy as well.'” Chatrie (citation omitted). “Whether an expectation of privacy counts as legitimate is less the result of any fixed set of rules than of ‘guideposts’ stretching back to the Fourth Amendment’s beginnings… From the founding onward, we have explained, the Fourth Amendment has sought to secure the ‘privacies of life’ against the exercise of ‘arbitrary power.’… So too we have recognized, and repeatedly, that the Amendment was designed ‘to place obstacles in the way of a too permeating police surveillance.’ … Whatever the form of an attempted incursion, the Fourth Amendment protects Americans’ long-held conviction that no government official should have free access to the most closely kept aspects of their lives.” Chatrie (citations omitted).

What is a geofence police search, and is that a Fourth Amendment search?

In Chatrie, after a bank robbery, police / law enforcement officers (LEO) learned from witnesses and surveillance camera film that the robber had arrived to the bank from a nearby church, while apparently on a cellphone. That by itself was insufficient for police to find the robber. The police thereby applied for a search warrant to Google for geofence data of a designated perimiter around he bank robbery crime scene, to require Google to provide data, including known names, about cellphones within that perimiter near the time of the robbery. This yielded three cellphone users’ names. Chatrie confirms that the search pursuant to that search warrant was a Fourth Amendment search, and that all that was left was to determine whether that search carried Fourth Amendment reasonableness.

Should I fight the police search that found incriminating evidence against me?

If you have been accused of a crime as a result of a police search — whether by a geofence search or otherwise — make sure that your Virginia criminal defense lawyer is knowledgeable about relevant Fourth Amendment arguments, is persuasive in making such arguments, stays abreast of developments in relevant appellate court cases, and is insightful for making such arguments. Even if your trial judge is not fond of the extent of Fourth Amendment protections enunciated by appellate court cases, judges are required to follow their oaths, which includes adhering to governing appellate caselaw.

How can I successfully challenge the execution of a search warrant directed to a third party?

Chatrie‘s dissent asserts that one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in data given over to Google or another third party. Fortunately, the Chatrie majority pans that concept by recognizing that modern smartphone cellphone use by necessity includes intertwined activities with third party applications and third party services. Riley recognizes that our cellphones contain a huge amount of personal data in one small device, and that smallness does not eliminate Fourth Amendment protection. Chatrie also pans the notion that a Fourth Amendment violation does not arise from a geofence that is tightly circumscribed in terms of geography and timeframe. As Chatrie aptly points out: “Indeed, in our seminal wiretap case, the police obtained only 18 minutes of recordings. See Katz, 389 U. S., at 354, n. 14.” Chatrie. 

Fairfax criminal defense lawyer Jonathan Katz knows that your interest is in obtaining as much victory and justice as possible, regardless of whether that is with a flourish, through complex Constitutional argument, or any other advocacy approach permitted by law against Virginia DUI, felony and misdemeanor prosecutions. A great starting point for your defense is your initial free strictly confidential in-person consultation with Jon Katz about your court-pending prosecution. Usually Jon can meet with you within a business day of your contacting us at 703-383-1100, Info@KatzJustice.com or (text) 571-406-7268.