Should Your Phone Help Solve Crimes?

An armed robber was on the loose. In May 2019, someone walked into a credit union near Richmond, Virginia, holding a gun and demanding cash. A few minutes later, the robber escaped with nearly $200,000. 

Police detectives searched for evidence to catch the criminal. They dusted for fingerprints and interviewed witnesses. But there wasn’t much to go on, because the suspect had been wearing a disguise. So the detectives turned to electronic evidence instead—cell phone data. 

You may not give it much thought, but your cell phone is likely tracking everything you do, from the calls you make to what you buy online. Many apps, such as Google, even keep tabs on your exact location. And those companies often store—and own—the data they collect.

An armed robber was on the loose. It was May 2019. Someone walked into a credit union near Richmond, Virginia. The person was holding a gun and demanded cash. A few minutes later, the robber escaped with nearly $200,000.

Police detectives searched for evidence to catch the criminal. They dusted for fingerprints. They interviewed witnesses. But there wasn’t much to go on. The suspect had been wearing a disguise. So the detectives turned to electronic evidence instead—cell phone data. 

You may not give it much thought. But your cell phone is likely tracking everything you do. It might be tracking your calls, your purchases, and more. Many apps even keep tabs on your exact location. That includes Google. Those companies often store—and own—the data they collect. 

The detectives investigating the robbery got permission from a judge to access that data. They ordered Google to identify every cell phone near the crime scene at the time of the robbery. That information led them to a man named Okello Chatrie.

Police charged Chatrie with the robbery using information from his phone. He eventually pleaded guilty and is serving a nearly 12-year prison sentence for the crime. 

But the case isn’t over yet. Chatrie has appealed his conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court. He argues that the police violated his right to privacy by accessing his phone’s data without his permission. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” 

The detectives investigating the robbery got permission from a judge to access that data. They ordered Google to identify every cell phone near the crime scene at the time of the robbery. That information led them to a man named Okello Chatrie.

Police charged Chatrie with the robbery using information from his phone. He eventually pleaded guilty. He is serving a nearly 12-year prison sentence for the crime. 

But the case isn’t over yet. Chatrie has appealed his conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court. He argues that the police violated his right to privacy. He says they accessed his phone’s data without his permission. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” 

Lawyers for the federal government argue that police did nothing wrong. They say that when people share their phone data with companies, that information is no longer private.

This summer, the Supreme Court will decide whether Chatrie’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated. “Anyone with a phone—which is pretty much everyone—should pay attention,” says Ric Simmons. He is a law professor and Fourth Amendment expert at Ohio State University. “This case is going to determine how much privacy we have . . . and how far the government can go in getting information about where we are.” 

Lawyers for the federal government argue that police did nothing wrong. They say that when people share their phone data with companies, that information is no longer private.

This summer, the Supreme Court will decide whether Chatrie’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated. “Anyone with a phone—which is pretty much everyone—should pay attention,” says Ric Simmons. He is a law professor and Fourth Amendment expert at Ohio State University. “This case is going to determine how much privacy we have . . . and how far the government can go in getting information about where we are.” 

Our nation’s founders wrote the Fourth Amendment in the late 1700s—long before cell phones existed. They were thinking about British officers. Before and during the American Revolution (1775-1783), officers would search colonists’ homes and seize their belongings without permission.

Today searches are usually done by police, but they have to follow specific rules set up to protect people’s rights. If law enforcement officers ask to search your property—whether it’s your house or your car—the Fourth Amendment gives you the right to say no. If you do agree to a search, you’re effectively giving up your Fourth Amendment protections. 

If you refuse, police will need a warrant to continue. A warrant is a court document that gives law enforcement the right to perform a search. To get one, police must convince a judge that there’s “probable cause”—a reason to suspect you have broken a law.

As technology has evolved, so have warrants. The type of warrant used in the Chatrie case is called a geofence warrant. It lets police get cell phone location data for a specific time and place.

Our nation’s founders wrote the Fourth Amendment in the late 1700s. That was long before cell phones existed. They were thinking about British officers. Before and during the American Revolution (1775-1783), officers would search colonists’ homes. And they would seize their belongings without permission.

Today searches are usually done by police. But they have to follow specific rules set up to protect people’s rights. Law enforcement officers could ask to search your property, like your house or your car. But the Fourth Amendment gives you the right to say no. If you agree to the search, you’re effectively giving up your Fourth Amendment protections. 

If you refuse, police will need a warrant to continue. A warrant is a court document. It gives law enforcement the right to perform a search. To get one, police must convince a judge that there’s “probable cause.” That means there’s a reason to suspect you have broken a law.

Technology has evolved. And so have warrants. The type of warrant used in the Chatrie case is called a geofence warrant. It lets police get cell phone location data for a specific time and place.

How the Supreme Court will rule in this case is anyone’s guess. In recent years, lower courts have disagreed on whether geofence warrants violate people’s right to privacy. 

The justices may use this decision to clarify how privacy rights apply to  electronic devices, says Brent Skorup. He is a constitutional law expert at a research group called the Cato Institute. “Do we own our digital records that contain our sensitive information?” Skorup asks. “The law is uncertain about this.”

How the Supreme Court will rule in this case is anyone’s guess. In recent years, lower courts have disagreed on whether geofence warrants violate people’s right to privacy. 

The justices may use this decision to clarify how privacy rights apply to electronic devices, says Brent Skorup. He is a constitutional law expert at a research group called the Cato Institute. “Do we own our digital records that contain our sensitive information?” Skorup asks. “The law is uncertain about this.”

Google, for its part, announced in 2023 that it would stop storing users’ location data so that police could no longer serve the company with geofence warrants. But other companies, including Apple and Uber, have continued to receive geofence warrants.

Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, experts say this case is a reminder that we need to be mindful of how we use our phones.

“Your cell phone is going to track you. That’s how phones work,” Simmons says. “So all of us need to be . . . a bit more careful.”

—with additional reporting by Lauren Vespoli

Google, for one, announced in 2023 that it would stop storing users’ location data. So the police can no longer serve the company with geofence warrants. But other companies have continued to receive geofence warrants. That includes Apple and Uber.

No matter how the Supreme Court rules, experts say there is a lesson from this case. We need to be mindful of how we use our phones.

“Your cell phone is going to track you. That’s how phones work,” Simmons says. “So all of us need to be . . . a bit more careful.”

—with additional reporting by Lauren Vespoli