A few days ago, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Chatrie v. United States, one of the most significant Fourth Amendment cases in years. The case challenges the constitutionality of “geofence warrants,” a growing practice in which police demand that technology companies turn over location data for everyone near a crime scene to generate a list of suspects.

In response to the Supreme Court agreeing to hear this case, Cato Institute legal scholar Brent Skorup released the following statement:

“Federal courts are divided. Some have warned that geofence warrants resemble the general warrants the Constitution was meant to forbid, while the Fourth Circuit in Chatrie held that obtaining portions of a user’s location-history data from Google was not a Fourth Amendment search. The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to clarify whether Americans own and retain privacy rights in their sensitive digital records — and to reaffirm that suspicionless digital dragnets have no place in a free society.”

To speak with Skorup further on Chatrie v. United States, contact Christopher Tarvardian.