During oral arguments, the US solicitor general argued that individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in movements visible to anyone and shared with third parties. Justice Kavanaugh expressed concerns about the practical consequences of not solving murders without such warrants. Justice Sotomayor said the warrant in this case was specific enough, identifying a place, crime, and timeframe. The justices appeared inclined to allow geofence warrants but eager to avoid a broad ruling.
Conflicting circuit court rulings highlight the stakes. The federal appeals court in Richmond upheld Chatrie's conviction in a fractured ruling, while the New Orleans appeals court ruled that geofence warrants are general warrants categorically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. Privacy advocates view such searches as a dragnet that sweeps up innocent bystanders, while law enforcement says they help solve crimes after dead ends. Only about one-third of Google account holders opt into location history; Chatrie had turned it on. Law enforcement requested phone data for a 30-minute period. It remains unclear whether the Court will issue a broad ruling on the constitutionality of such warrants or a narrow one.