Five weeks after the Supreme Court struck down so-called geofence searches in its landmark Fourth Amendment decision in Chatrie v. United States, the ramifications for other broad law enforcement investigative techniques are coming into focus. On Wednesday, August 5, U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves reaffirmed a magistrate judge’s ruling quashing federal law enforcement’s ability to obtain “tower dump” warrants.
Judge Reeves’ decision in the Southern District of Mississippi may signal a turning point in the post-Chatrie era against non individualized electronic searches. Both state and federal law enforcement authorities have commonly used tower dumps to pull large amounts of data from cell towers located near crime scenes. The data, which reveals the cell phones connected to a cell tower during a set time block, has historically allowed investigators to examine recurring cell numbers at multiple crime scenes.
Last year, investigators with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives successfully used a tower dump to identify a man accused of a string of gun store robberies in Pennsylvania. This year, investigators asked a federal judge for approval to perform a tower dump while investigating vandalism at a Federal Aviation Administration facility in Vermont.
In the Mississippi case, FBI agents investigating a series of violent crimes committed in the Jackson area submitted four warrants for a magistrate judge’s approval in February 2025. The magistrate judge, however, denied the warrants, citing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Smith, pre-dating Chatrie, striking down geofence warrants. In March 2025, the government appealed the magistrate judge’s order to Judge Reeves.
Opening his thirty-page opinion, Judge Reeves writes:
“Digital surveillance has been a huge boon to the government. By leveraging time-and-location data from cellular devices, agents can ascertain the identities of previously unknown suspects. This technique has enhanced law enforcement’s ability to investigate and prosecute crime. But digital surveillance can also provide the government with unfettered access into individuals’ lives. Such intrusions would have been unthinkable to those 55 men gathered in Philadelphia in 1787. Therein lies the problem—the technological resources at the government’s disposal unlock efficient and effective ways to solve crime in the twenty-first century, but they also expose individuals’ whereabouts at all times, including in sensitive places. The government now has the capacity to identify any individual with a cell phone, at any public or private location. As technology continues to evolve, open questions remain about what surveillance actions meet constitutional muster. The Fourth Amendment’s protection against expansive government surveillance, nevertheless, must stay true to the Founders’ core principles.
Law enforcement, in this matter, is investigating a series of violent crimes that were committed in Jackson, Mississippi. Some suspects’ identities are known. Others are not. To identify all those potentially involved, the Government applied for search warrants. These warrants would permit law enforcement to use “tower dumps” to access the time-and-location-data of all devices that connected to cell towers around the area where these crimes allegedly occurred. With this information, the Government asserts that it will be able to identify all potential suspects. Even so, law enforcement would also have access to the cellular records of countless individuals, the vast majority of whom were merely passing by a location at the “wrong” time. That is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. To uphold core constitutional principles, this Court finds that tower dumps are per se unconstitutional. The Government’s request to reverse the Magistrate Judge’s decision denying its applications for search warrants is denied.”
In the order, Judge Reeves cited the Supreme Court’s holding in Chatrie thirteen times. The Justice Department now has to decide whether to appeal the order to the Fifth Circuit.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) previously told Court Watch that “dragnet surveillance” tactics such as tower dumps make “a mockery of the Fourth Amendment. Cell tower dumps sweep up the personal data of tens of thousands of innocent Americans. But for too long, courts have rubberstamped surveillance dragnets by ignoring that innocent bystanders have privacy rights too.”
In July 2025, the docket was inexplicably sealed, and all past open court filings were made unavailable to the public. Repeated inquiries to the clerk’s office and the judge’s chambers to determine the reasoning behind the newfound secrecy were unsuccessful. Court Watch filed an August 2025 motion in the district to unseal the docket. Responding to our motion, Judge Reeves said that the docket was sealed due to an “inadvertent error” by the court and ordered it available to the public yet again.
Court Watch’s motion was drafted by noted First Amendment lawyer and Court Watch subscriber, Christopher Beall. We thank him for his support. Additionally, Court Watch bore the costs of local counsel and filing fees. You can support our independent journalism through a paid subscription or one-time donation.
