Most justices seemed unconvinced Monday that law enforcement’s use of Google data to track a bank robber violates the Constitution. The case stemmed from the prosecution of Okello Chatrie, who conditionally pleaded guilty in 2022 to robbing a Midlothian, Virginia, credit union. He reserved his right to make the case for suppressing evidence if it was illegally obtained. His lawyer, Adam Unikowsky, argued to the high court Monday that a court-approved geofence warrant used to identify and apprehend him violated the Fourth Amendment. The warrants were to compel third-party companies such as Google to search customer locations from multiple devices in a finite area during a finite time, in this case, being the time of the robbery. Chatrie was reportedly sentenced to 12 years for taking $195,000 from the bank. Law enforcement argued it exhausted other leads in its investigation before resorting to a geofence warrant. Chief Justice John Roberts asked Unikowsky on Monday, “If you don’t want the government to have your location history, you just flip that off. You don’t have to have that feature on your phone. So what’s the issue?” Unikowsky replied it was not implied consent. “I just don’t agree that one should have to flip off one’s location history, as well as other cloud services, to avoid government surveillance,” he said. Roberts responded, “If you don’t want someone to peer in your window, you can close your window or the shades.” Justice Samuel Alito said, “I’m struggling to understand why we are hearing this case.” He noted that the debate is about a Google feature that no longer exists. “We are all free to write law review articles on this fascinating subject, but that seems to be what you’re asking for,” Alito said. The attorney responded, “All we’d ask for in this case is, if the court finds a Fourth Amendment violation, to reverse and send it back for the Fourth Circuit to consider the good faith issue in view of this court’s guidance.” The plaintiff did seem to get some sympathy from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, on the liberal wing of the court. She noted that Google documents, Google calendars, and other information can be obtained by law enforcement. “If this is consent, that means the government can seek those documents for any reason, not just the commission for crime,” Sotomayor said. “So that means the government, a police officer, randomly decides, I don’t like that person. Let me just go look at their life to see if I can find the crime. That would be okay,” Sotomayor continued. Unikowsky replied, “Correct.” Arguing for the Trump administration, Deputy Solicitor General Eric Feigin said ruling with the plaintiffs would constitute an “unprecedented transformation of the Fourth Amendment into an impregnable fortress.” “In doing so, he would make that fortress so impregnable that not even a judge’s warrant, for even a moment of the public location of someone who, again, affirmatively opted to allow Google to have those records and to access them, would be available to law enforcement,” Feigin added. “That’s a debilitating and counterintuitive reading of the Fourth Amendment that would impede the investigation of kidnappings, robberies, shootings, and other crimes.”