Michigan AG Leads 32-State Coalition to Defend Geofence Warrants Before Supreme Court

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has joined a bipartisan coalition of 32 attorneys general in defending geofence warrants before the U.S. Supreme Court, positioning Michigan at the center of a national debate over law enforcement surveillance and Fourth Amendment rights.

The coalition, led by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, filed an amicus brief in Chatrie v. United States, urging the nation's highest court to affirm that geofence warrants do not violate constitutional protections against unreasonable searches. The case will be argued before the Supreme Court on April 27, 2026.

The Coalition Position

Attorney General Nessel and the coalition argue that properly drawn geofence warrants satisfy the Fourth Amendment and remain critical tools for law enforcement. The brief contends that geofencing technology, which allows authorities to pinpoint the location of cellphones or mobile devices within specific geographic areas at certain times, does not constitute an unconstitutional general warrant.

The coalition includes attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Washington.

The Case Background

Okello Chatrie was indicted in 2019 in connection with an armed bank robbery in Virginia after law enforcement obtained a geofence warrant revealing his cellphone data and tracking location within a specific area. The warrant collected information from private residences, public streets, a church, and a restaurant, according to legal filings.

Opposing Arguments

Civil rights organizations have filed counter-briefs arguing that geofence warrants are overly broad and unconstitutional. The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Virginia, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law filed an amicus brief stating that geofence searches fail the Fourth Amendment's probable cause, particularity, and judicial review requirements.

"They should be categorically rejected by courts," the civil rights brief stated.

Tom McBrien, counsel with the Electronic Privacy Information Center, argues that geofence warrants enable "unprecedented, pervasive surveillance" with limited safeguards. McBrien contends that the technology sweeps up individuals who may have no connection to criminal activity and can lead to wrongful accusations.

Legal Stakes

The Supreme Court case represents the first tech-driven case exclusively focusing on cellphones since 2018, according to legal observers. The decision will shape how law enforcement can use location data from major technology companies and could impact countless investigations across the country.

The 1967 case of Berger v. New York examined the pervasiveness of wiretapping and resulted in the Supreme Court invalidating a New York law, ruling that wiretapping violated Fourth Amendment protections. Legal scholars note that geofence warrants present different challenges given modern cellphone technology.

Michigan's Role

By joining the bipartisan coalition, Attorney General Nessel has placed Michigan at the center of this national legal battle. The state's attorney general has been active in multiple high-profile legal challenges, including leading a lawsuit challenging President Trump's executive order attempting to federalize elections and joining 24 other attorneys general in suing over a Trump vote-by-mail executive order.

The case highlights Michigan's willingness to take positions on national legal issues that affect law enforcement capabilities and civil liberties.