Question not identified.

I. A geofence warrant, directed at a company such as Google, is a law enforcement tool used to obtain location history of user accounts via applications or programs active on someone’s cell phone or other device within a geographic area . Warrants of this nature are sweeping as they are limited only by geographic and temporal parameters. The Fifth Circuit has held that such warrants are categorically prohibited as they constitute general warrants in violation of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Smith , 110 F.4th 817, 838 (5th Cir. 2024). But the Fourth Circuit, in United States v. Chatrie, 136 F.4th 100 (4th Cir. 2025) ( rehearing en banc) (memo), and the Eleventh Circuit in this case, have rejected Fourth Amendment challenges, on varied and fractured grounds, to the use of geofence warrants. Is review warranted to resolve this discord among the circuits? II. Does the record taken as a whole demonstrate improper collusion between federal and state law enforcement to make Davis’s arrest by state officers subject to the federal presentment requirements set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c) and Rule 5(a), Fed. R. Crim. P.? III. Whether Davis’s motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted on the three carjacking counts for want of sufficient evidence that Davis had the intent to kill or seriously injury anyone?