Supreme Court Considers Constitutionality of Geofence Warrants in Bank Robbery Case

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether geofence warrants violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches. The case involves Okello Chatrie, who robbed a bank in suburban Richmond, Virginia, in May 2019 and was later identified through location data obtained from Google.

Prosecutors used the data to link Chatrie's cellphone to the vicinity of the crime. Geofence warrants enable law enforcement to request location history from companies like Google for devices within a specified area and time. In Chatrie's case, police served a warrant on Google after the robbery at Call Federal Credit Union, where $195,000 was stolen.

The data showed Chatrie's device was among a few in the area, leading to a search of his home that recovered nearly $100,000 in cash.

Background on the Case Chatrie pleaded guilty and received a sentence of nearly 12 years in prison. His lawyers appealed, arguing the geofence warrant infringed on his privacy by collecting data without evidence of involvement in the crime. A federal judge found the search violated Chatrie's rights but allowed the evidence, stating the officer acted in good faith.

The federal appeals court in Richmond upheld the conviction in a divided ruling. Separately, a federal appeals court in New Orleans ruled that geofence warrants are general warrants prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court's review follows a 2018 decision requiring warrants for long-term cellphone location data from towers.

warrants reverse traditional investigative methods by identifying potential suspects from location data rather than starting with a known individual. Prosecutors stated these warrants have helped solve crimes, including killings in California, Georgia, and North Carolina, as well as identifying individuals involved in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack and a pipe bomb placement the night before.