A years-old bank heist may soon have major privacy implications for every American who owns a cellphone. On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Chatrie v. United States, a case involving police’s use of controversial “geofence warrants” to find and arrest Okello Chatrie, the suspect of a 2019 bank robbery outside Richmond, Virginia.

The case revolves around the legality of accessing location data through geofence warrants. Police tracked Chatrie down using Google Maps' Location History feature, which identifies a person’s location within three meters and refreshes every two minutes. A federal district court initially found that police did not have probable cause for the warrant, but ultimately sided with the government, citing the 'good faith exception.' However, Chatrie's attorney argues that such searches violate the Fourth Amendment.

The core question is whether accessing geofence information counts as a ‘search’ at all. The court uses two methods to assess this: property interests and basic privacy rights. Chatrie’s attorneys argue using what’s known as the Katz test, which states that even if no property is involved, a search can occur if it violates a person's expectation of privacy.

The case may have far-reaching implications for other digital searches where police do not have an identified suspect or device. The composition of the Supreme Court has changed significantly since the last major Fourth Amendment case in 2018, which could influence the outcome.