Geofence Warrant Fourth Amendment Supreme Court Case (Chatrie v. United States)
The U.S. government filed a brief on March 25, 2026, urging the Supreme Court to rule that geofence warrants do not violate the Fourth Amendment when location data is voluntarily shared with a third party, with oral arguments scheduled for April 27, 2026, in Washington D.C. As of March 26, 2026: The Department of Justice is urging the Supreme Court to uphold the legality of geofence warrants in *Chatrie v. United States*, a case stemming from a 2019 Virginia bank robbery. A decision, expected by the end of June 2026, will determine if obtaining location data for all devices within a specified area and time frame violates the Fourth Amendment, building upon the 2018 *Carpenter* decision. The American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Knight First Amendment Institute, and Liberty Justice Center have filed amicus briefs arguing these warrants are unconstitutional "digital dragnets" that threaten privacy and First Amendment activities.
Timeline
Want updates on this thread?
Track this storyTimeline of developments
April 2026 — 1 developments
The U.S. government filed a brief on March 25, 2026, urging the Supreme Court to rule that geofence …
The U.S. government filed a brief on March 25, 2026, urging the Supreme Court to rule that geofence warrants do not violate the Fourth Amendment when location data is voluntarily shared with a third party. Oral arguments are scheduled for April 27, 2026.
March 2026 — 2 developments
The Department of Justice is urging the Supreme Court to uphold the legality of geofence warrants in the case of Chatrie v.
The Department of Justice is urging the Supreme Court to uphold the legality of geofence warrants in the case of Chatrie v. United States. A decision in the case, which centers on evidence obtained through a geofence warrant for a bank robbery conviction, is expected by the end of June 2026. This ruling could significantly impact data privacy standards and law enforcement practices.
The American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Knight First Amendment Institute…
The 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.
February 2026 — 1 developments
Oral arguments for the Supreme Court case Chatrie v.
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.
January 2026 — 5 developments
The Supreme Court case Chatrie v.
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'.
The Freedom of the Press Foundation warned that a Supreme Court ruling against Chatrie could severel…
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.
The case *Chatrie v.
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.
The Supreme Court's decision to review the constitutionality of geofence warrants follows a 2024 Fifth Circuit ruling in U.
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.
The Supreme Court granted Chatrie's petition for a writ of certiorari, agreeing to hear the case.
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.
July 2025 — 1 developments
Chatrie filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking review of the Fourth Circuit's decision.
Chatrie filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking review of the Fourth Circuit's decision.
April 2025 — 1 developments
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.
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.
April 2024 — 1 developments
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision.
The 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.
March 2022 — 2 developments
Chatrie entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.
Chatrie 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.
The district court denied Chatrie's motion to suppress.
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.
October 2019 — 1 developments
Chatrie was arraigned and pleaded not guilty.
Chatrie 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.
August 2019 — 1 developments
Okello Chatrie was charged with armed robbery in Virginia, based on Google Sensorvault data obtained through a geofence warrant.
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.