The Supreme Court Weighs How Much Google Surveillance Can Be Used Against You in Court

A newsletter highlights under-the-radar legal developments involving how Trump changes law or how law pushes back. The Supreme Court’s final term included major oral arguments that received less attention amid controversy over the Voting Rights Act. In Chatrie v. United States, the Court addressed how Fourth Amendment doctrine should evolve with modern surveillance technology. The case centers on a credit union robbery in 2019 where investigators used a geofence warrant to have Google identify devices within about 150 meters during the relevant hour. Google produced anonymized location information tied to devices in the perimeter. Police reviewed movement patterns, sought expanded data for selected users, and later requested identifying information connected to accounts, including Okello Chatrie.

"In one of the term's last cases, Chatrie v. United States, the Supreme Court last month confronted how its Fourth Amendment jurisprudence will continue to evolve in the face of modern surveillance technology. The case asks whether the Fourth Amendment still means what Americans think it means as surveillance becomes automated, invisible, and broad enough to treat entire groups of ordinary people as searchable by default."

"In 2019, a man entered a credit union outside Richmond, Virginia, carrying a cellphone and a gun. He handed a teller a note threatening violence against employees and their families. He forced workers onto the floor, escorted employees to the safe, and fled with nearly $200,000. Surveillance footage showed him holding a phone to his ear shortly before the robbery. Witnesses described him. Detectives ran down leads."

"When the investigation stalled, detectives obtained what is known as a geofence warrant, directing Google to identify devices located within roughly 150 meters of the bank during the relevant hour. Google searched its location history database and produced anonymized information tied to devices inside that perimeter. Police reviewed the movement patterns, requested expanded data for selected users, and eventually sought identifying information connected to several accounts. One belonged to Okello Chatrie."

"The mechanics sound technical right up until you say plainly what happened. The government"

Read at Slate Magazine