Supreme Court Debates Geofence Warrants

0:00It's April 26, I'm Cory with the story, and this is Tampa Bay News today, your AI-powered local news. The Supreme Court is diving into whether cops can use geofence warrants to track suspects through cell phone data, spotlighting a Virginia bank robbery, case from May 2019. Okello Chattry stole $195,000 from a credit union near Richmond, ditched the scene, but police hit Google with a, geofence requests for devices in the area right when it went down. Then narrowed it to his phone, leading to a home search with nearly $100,000 in Teller Mark Cash. He copped a guilty plea and got nearly 12 years. Lower court split on this. Richmond's appeals court upheld his conviction, despite some privacy flags, while New Orleans banned geofences outright as, fourth amendment no-goes. Police warrants flipped the script, no suspect first, just a crime spot, then drag in location histories from everyone nearby to fish for matches. Prosecutors swear by them for cracking cold cases, Jan 6 rioters, even pipe bombers near

1:04party headquarters. They've helped nap killers in states like California and Georgia too. But privacy advocates call it a drag net on innocence, scooping up your moves just for being in the wrong spot at the wrong time. Police echoes the court's 2018 ruling against warrantless cell tower pings over months, and hinges on whether sharing location with Google. Kill your privacy expectation under the third party rule. Monday's arguments pit law enforcement needs against digital age rights, as justice is graveled with an 18th century amendment in our smartphone. Whirl, yeah.