Supreme Court Weighs Geofence Warrants, Privacy

0:00It's April 25th. Welcome in. This is Canada News Today, where local news meets AI. I'm Corey with the story. The Supreme Court is diving into whether Geofence warrants violate the Fourth Amendment. These digital dragnets let cops draw a virtual fence around a crime scene and snag location data from Google on every phone nearby. In one key case, O'kelo Chatterey robbed a credit union in suburban Richmond, Virginia, back in May 2019, making off with $100, $95,000. Cops hit a wall until that Geofence pinpointed his phone, leading straight to nearly $100,000 in cash at his place, including Teller Mark Bills. Chatterey copped a plea and got nearly 12 years, but now he's appealing, saying the warrant trampled his privacy by sweeping up innocent folks. Data. Prosecutors fired back that he opted into Google's location tracking, so no big privacy expectation there. Lower courts split hard one in Richmond, upheld it, while New Orleans called Geofence

1:03warrants straight up illegal general searches. Cops love these tools for cracking coal cases, like murders in California, Georgia, North Carolina, even January 6th rioters and pipe bomb planners. Near party headquarters. They flipped the script, no suspect first, just a spot, then reverse engineer who was there. People libertarians call it fishing expeditions, dragging regular people into probes just for passing by. Monday's arguments pair Chatterey's fight with Bayer, battling thousands of round-of-cancer lawsuits. Back in 2018, the court ruled five to four that long-term cell tower pings need warrants, stressing privacy expectations even for, third-party data. This ruling could reshape how police chase digital ghosts, or slam the door on a tactic that's already everywhere. Justice got a bridge 18th century rights with 21st century tech. Stay tuned as they drop that verdict.