Charlie Kirk & Geofence Warrants in Utah Investigations

The debate over geofence warrants, sometimes called “reverse location” warrants, has been pushed into the spotlight by recent high-profile investigations in Utah. Commentator Charlie Kirk’s name surfaced in public discussion as a touchstone for hypothetical investigative scenarios, raising awareness of how these warrants work and the unresolved constitutional questions they raise.

At the center of the issue is a clash between powerful digital forensics and the Fourth Amendment’s ban on general warrants. Are geofence warrants a necessary tool for law enforcement when no suspect is known? Or are they unconstitutional dragnets that sweep in vast amounts of data on innocent bystanders?

What Is a Geofence Warrant?

Illustration of a geofence circle on a city map with multiple digital location pins.

A geofence warrant compels a provider, most often Google, to query its location database for all devices that were inside a defined virtual perimeter during a specific time window.

Step 1: Police draw the perimeter.
Step 2: Google provides anonymized device IDs.
Step 3: Investigators request additional identifiers to unmask specific devices.

Supporters call this process an essential lead generator in cases with no known suspects. Critics argue it is the digital equivalent of searching everyone to find someone.

Until late 2024, Google stored “Location History” centrally, which enabled more than 11,000 U.S. geofence requests in 2020. Google has since moved toward on-device storage, a shift that could sharply reduce the availability of geofence data going forward.

The Constitutional Split: Fifth vs. Fourth Circuits

Illustration of scales of justice showing split rulings by U.S. appeals courts on geofence warrants.

Two federal appeals courts have now weighed in, and they disagree.

In United States v. Smith (5th Cir. Aug. 2024), the Fifth Circuit held that geofence warrants are categorically unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment because they resemble general warrants. The conviction, however, was affirmed under the good-faith exception.
In United States v. Chatrie (4th Cir. July 2024), a divided panel concluded that obtaining two hours of Google Location History did not constitute a Fourth Amendment “search.” The court denied suppression, but later granted rehearing en banc. Civil-liberties groups, including the NACDL, filed briefs warning of the broad privacy risks (NACDL petition PDF).

Both opinions build on the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Carpenter v. United States (2018), which held that accessing historical cell-site location information (CSLI) is a Fourth Amendment “search” requiring a warrant.

Utah’s Framework: HB57 and Beyond

Illustration of Utah state outline with geofence target symbol.

Utah is one of the few states with its own statute regulating reverse-location warrants. Under HB57 (2023 ), any geofence warrant must include:

A showing of probable cause,
A visual map of the proposed perimeter, and
Minimization procedures to limit overcollection.

In 2025, lawmakers advanced amendments refining these rules, underscoring Utah’s position as a national leader in legislating reverse-location searches.

Could a Geofence Warrant Be Used in Utah Investigations?

Illustration of a large outdoor crowd with a geofence perimeter around location pins.

Public reporting has not confirmed a geofence warrant in recent Utah cases. Still, the fact pattern, a large outdoor crowd, a fixed time and location, and the urgent need to identify unknown persons, fit scenarios where investigators often consider the tool.

Key challenges include:

Scope & particularity: How large is the perimeter? How long is the window?
Minimization: Are innocents adequately screened out before devices are unmasked?
Good-faith reliance: Would evidence survive if the warrant is later deemed unconstitutional?

Because Utah sits in the Tenth Circuit, neither Smith nor Chatrie is binding, though both decisions will be persuasive in any challenge.

Practical Takeaways for Clients

Illustration of a lawyer with digital icons of data, maps, and legal protections.

Treat geofence demands as high-risk. If your company receives one, preserve data, escalate internally, and seek counsel. Transparency reporting or intervention may be appropriate if the order is over-broad. Here three points to consider:

Expect preservation orders: Even without a geofence warrant, investigators often serve subpoenas and seek rapid preservation of digital evidence.
Jurisdiction matters: In Fifth Circuit states (TX, LA, MS), Smith is the controlling law. Elsewhere, risk varies.
Corporate policies are shifting: Counsel should ask what data providers retain today, since Google’s pivot to on-device storage is already changing availability.

Bottom Line

Illustration of scales of justice weighing smartphones against constitutional law.

Geofence warrants sit at the intersection of cutting-edge digital forensics and centuries-old Fourth Amendment doctrine.

The “Kirk investigation” debate highlights how quickly these tools come under consideration in high-profile cases. Until the Supreme Court weighs in, or Congress legislates, organizations should assume heightened litigation risk and prepare accordingly.

Read more from our blog about geofence warrants.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has declared the unconstitutionality of geofence warrants, raising substantial questions about the future of digital surveillance in America. The judgment in United States v. Jamarr Smith, No. 23-60321 (5th Cir. 2024) has not only created a circuit split but has also sparked heated debates over privacy rights versus law enforcement’s ability to fight crime in the digital era.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has Declared Geofence Warrants Unconstitutional