This year, in Chatrie v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether geofence warrants are valid under the Fourth Amendment. The geofence warrant at issue in the case was one that allowed the government to obtain account data from Google of hundreds of millions of users. It’s the equivalent to a digital dragnet, which I’ve long argued contravenes the core purpose of the Fourth Amendment. The Framers of the Constitution hated dragnet searches . . . actually, to be more precise, HATED them.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t find geofence warrants to be invalid, then it’s hard to imagine much left of the already-desiccated Fourth Amendment. But Chatrie is just the tip of the iceberg. Regular warrants under the Fourth Amendment—those that are properly circumscribed based on particularized suspicion—are also not strong enough for our times.
We’re witnessing an unprecedented rise of authoritarianism in the United States. I’ve long argued that warrants are an effective way to protect privacy and also balance interests in law enforcement. But now I don’t think warrants are enough to provide the kind of protection against government power that is necessary.
