{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreieq4mvzgxn2tcuz4ouikphrvauuvhyvo3kafukd34nu4ktemkpxdq",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:aa75s3buac4ykoznhbesf5vb/app.bsky.feed.post/3mm43cfi5ajx2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreiexi7ywdlqamltb6zr4n6zlloeria4q57hefrbhdsku5q75n2hsue"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/png",
    "size": 208920
  },
  "path": "/whats-at-stake-in-chatrie-v-united-states",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-17T13:00:00.000Z",
  "site": "https://techpolicy.press",
  "tags": [
    "heard oral argument",
    "geofence warrant",
    "monitoring the case",
    "litigation director"
  ],
  "textContent": "At the end of last month, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in _Chatrie v. United States_. The case involves the use of a geofence warrant, which police use to demand information on all cellphones within a certain area and period of time. The outcome of the case, which revolves around Fourth Amendment questions, could have profound implications for location tracking and privacy in the digital age.\n\nTo learn more, Tech Policy Press fellow **Jake Laperruque** , who is monitoring the case, spoke to **Michael Price** , who serves as litigation director for the Fourth Amendment Center at National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), one of the lawyers representing the plaintiff.",
  "title": "What's At Stake in Chatrie v. United States"
}