Event / Politics

Supreme Court Geofence Warrant Case

← All events

Updated

The Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of geofence warrants, which allow law enforcement to obtain location data from tech companies to identify suspects near crime scenes. The case involves a bank robbery suspect and raises Fourth Amendment privacy concerns amid debate over investigative effectiveness.

5 reported locations
Geography of the reported facts
  1. Virginia, United States
  2. Washington, District of Columbia, United States
  3. Midlothian, Virginia, United States
  4. New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
  5. Richmond, Virginia, United States

The story so far

Daily activity

0 articles
0 articles

2026-08-18 to 2026-11-15 · UTC publication dates

Coverage begins 26 Apr, 02:07 UTC

Follow the documented timeline or explore the related reporting.

What happened

The facts
  1. Federal judge ruled geofence warrant violated Fourth Amendment privacy rights

    A federal judge determined that the geofence warrant used to identify Okello Chatrie violated his Fourth Amendment rights because it allowed authorities to gather location history of people near the bank without evidence they had anything to do with the robbery. However, the judge allowed the evidence to be used because the officer who applied for the warrant reasonably believed he was acting properly.

    1 corroborating report

  2. Police used geofence warrants to identify January 6 Capitol riot participants

    Law enforcement used geofence warrants to identify supporters of President Donald Trump who participated in the riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

    1 corroborating report

  3. Okello Chatrie robbed Call Federal Credit Union in Virginia

    Okello Chatrie stole $195,000 from Call Federal Credit Union in Midlothian, Virginia in May 2019. Police used a geofence warrant served on Google to identify that Chatrie's cellphone was in the vicinity of the bank during the robbery. A subsequent search warrant of his home found nearly $100,000 in cash, including bills wrapped in bands signed by the bank teller. Chatrie pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nearly 12 years in prison.

    1 corroborating report

  4. New Orleans federal appeals court ruled geofence warrants are categorically prohibited

    In a separate case, the federal appeals court in New Orleans ruled that geofence warrants are general warrants categorically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.

    1 corroborating report

  5. Police used geofence warrants in pipe bomb investigation

    Police used geofence warrants to help search for the person who planted pipe bombs outside the Democratic and Republican party headquarters the night before January 6, 2021.

    1 corroborating report

  6. Supreme Court to decide on constitutionality of geofence warrants

    The Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether geofence warrants violate the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches. Geofence warrants allow police to obtain location history data from tech companies like Google for all cellphones in the vicinity of a crime scene, rather than identifying a suspect first. The case centers on whether this reverse identification method constitutes an unreasonable search.

    1 corroborating report

  7. Federal appeals court in Richmond upheld geofence warrant conviction

    The federal appeals court in Richmond upheld Okello Chatrie's conviction using evidence obtained from a geofence warrant, though the ruling was fractured among the judges.

    1 corroborating report

  8. Police credited geofence warrants with solving murders in multiple states

    Law enforcement credited geofence warrants with helping identify suspects in killings in several states, including California, Georgia, and North Carolina.

    1 corroborating report

Read the coverage