Abstract

Tracking your every move: a substantial invasion of privacy, yet a highly effective way to locate potential suspects. The Fourth Amendment exists to protect the privacy of individuals from government intrusion, but courts have little guidance on how it applies in a world of emerging technology—technology such as geofences, which can track a person’s location in immense detail. As a result, judges have differed profoundly in their analyses of how the Fourth Amendment applies to warrants for geofence location data. In July 2024, in the original United States v. Chatrie decision, the Fourth Circuit found that individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their geofence location data, and as a result, no warrant is required for law enforcement to obtain that data. One month later, a split emerged after the Fifth Circuit, in United States v. Smith, found that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their geofence location data and, additionally, that geofence warrants are unconstitutional general warrants. Considering the vastly different views, this Note proposes a middle ground between the original Fourth Circuit opinion and the Fifth Circuit opinion—a filter-focused approach to geofence warrants, which would help protect the privacy of individuals within geofence perimeters while facilitating effective policing.

How to Cite