Police Deploy Geofence Warrants to Solve High-Profile Crimes
Law enforcement uses geofence warrants to solve murders and major crimes, raising Fourth Amendment questions.
Event / Politics
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.
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.
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.
Law enforcement used geofence warrants to identify supporters of President Donald Trump who participated in the riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
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.
In a separate case, the federal appeals court in New Orleans ruled that geofence warrants are general warrants categorically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.
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.
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.
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.
Law enforcement credited geofence warrants with helping identify suspects in killings in several states, including California, Georgia, and North Carolina.
Law enforcement uses geofence warrants to solve murders and major crimes, raising Fourth Amendment questions.
Virginia bank robbery triggered Supreme Court geofence warrant case examining Fourth Amendment protections.
Supreme Court to resolve circuit split on whether geofence warrants violate Fourth Amendment privacy protections.