Geofence Warrant Fourth Amendment Supreme Court Case (Chatrie v. United States)
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on April 27, 2026, in Chatrie v. United States, a case challenging the constitutionality of geofence warrants, stemming from a 2019 Virginia bank robbery investigation. As of March 3, 2026, the American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Knight First Amendment Institute, and Liberty Justice Center have filed amicus briefs, arguing these warrants violate the Fourth Amendment by compelling companies to disclose location data for all devices within a defined area and time. The case will determine if obtaining such broad location data constitutes an unconstitutional search, building upon the 2018 Carpenter decision and focusing on the 'third-party doctrine'. The Freedom of the Press Foundation has warned that a ruling against Chatrie could severely impact press freedom by potentially allowing mass surveillance. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on January 16, 2026, to address whether the execution of a geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, following a 2024 Fifth Circuit ruling that found such warrants unconstitutional.
Timeline
Want updates on this thread?
Track this story2026
7 updates
2026
7 updatesThe American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Knight First Amendment Institute, and Liberty Justice Center have filed amicus briefs urging the Supreme Court to declare geofence warrants unconstitutional. They argue these warrants function as digital dragnets, violating the Fourth Amendment by compelling companies to disclose location data for all devices within a defined area and time, threatening privacy and First Amendment activities.
via supremecourt.gov
Oral arguments for the Supreme Court case Chatrie v. United States, which concerns the constitutionality of geofence warrants, are scheduled for April 27, 2026. The case, which began with a 2019 Virginia bank robbery investigation, will determine if obtaining location data for all devices within a specified area and time frame violates the Fourth Amendment.
via SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court case Chatrie v. United States will build upon the 2018 Carpenter decision regarding geolocation data privacy, with a key legal argument focusing on the 'third-party doctrine'.
via iapp.org
The Freedom of the Press Foundation warned that a Supreme Court ruling against Chatrie could severely impact press freedom by potentially allowing mass surveillance through geofence warrants. FPF Senior Adviser Caitlin Vogus elaborated on the Fourth Amendment implications.
via freedom.press
The case *Chatrie v. United States* has been placed on the Oral Argument Docket for the Supreme Court's OT 2025 term. Specific argument and opinion dates are yet to be determined.
via scotusblog.com
The Supreme Court's decision to review the constitutionality of geofence warrants follows a 2024 Fifth Circuit ruling in U.S. v. Smith that found such warrants unconstitutional, comparing them to prohibited general warrants.
via msba.org
The Supreme Court granted Chatrie's petition for a writ of certiorari, agreeing to hear the case. The Court will specifically address whether the execution of a geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.
via law.justia.com·nacdl.org·scotusblog.com·ca4.uscourts.gov·therecord.media
2025
2 updates
2025
2 updatesChatrie filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking review of the Fourth Circuit's decision.
via law.justia.com·nacdl.org·scotusblog.com·ca4.uscourts.gov·therecord.media
The full Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to rehear the case en banc and, in a one-sentence unsigned opinion, affirmed the three-judge panel's ruling.
via law.justia.com·nacdl.org·scotusblog.com·ca4.uscourts.gov·therecord.media
2024
1 update
2024
1 updateThe United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Chatrie did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the two hours' worth of Location History data voluntarily exposed to Google, and therefore, the government did not conduct a Fourth Amendment search when it obtained this information.
via law.justia.com·nacdl.org·scotusblog.com·ca4.uscourts.gov·therecord.media
2022
2 updates
2022
2 updatesChatrie entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. He was sentenced to 141 months' imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
via law.justia.com·nacdl.org·scotusblog.com·ca4.uscourts.gov·therecord.media
The district court denied Chatrie's motion to suppress. While the court expressed concerns about user privacy and the constitutionality of geofence warrants, it applied the 'good-faith exception' to the exclusionary rule, allowing the evidence to be used.
via law.justia.com·nacdl.org·scotusblog.com·ca4.uscourts.gov·therecord.media
2019
2 updates
2019
2 updatesChatrie was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. He subsequently filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained via the geofence warrant, arguing it violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
via law.justia.com·nacdl.org·scotusblog.com·ca4.uscourts.gov·therecord.media
Okello Chatrie was charged with armed robbery in Virginia, based on Google Sensorvault data obtained through a geofence warrant. Police used the warrant after being unable to identify a suspect from security footage and witness interviews. The geofence warrant sought location data for devices present within a specific area around the time of the robbery.
via law.justia.com·nacdl.org·scotusblog.com·ca4.uscourts.gov·therecord.media
Story began · 6 years, 7 mo ago