Supreme Court throws out ‘geofence’ warrant case, sends back to lower court


This recording was made using enhanced software.

The Supreme Court on Monday sent a case involving “geofence warrants” back to a lower court. Geofence warrants are an investigative tool used by law enforcement to determine what cell phones were near the scene of a crime.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices tossed out a ruling from a lower court against a Virginia man who argued that evidence in his case had been obtained illegally. The defendant, Okello Chatrie, pleaded guilty in 2022 to robbing a credit union and was sentenced to nearly 12 years in prison.

QR code for SAN app download

Download the Straight Arrow app today to get the stories that matter free from manipulation, bias or agenda.™

Point phone camera here

Authorities were able to prove Chatrie’s phone was present during the armed robbery after a court-approved geofence warrant obtained Google location data from his phone and 18 others. Chatrie’s account information was handed to authorities after ruling out the others.

Chatrie and his lawyer, who have been appealing the charges, say the search was overly broad and therefore violated the unreasonable search prohibition in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.  Although the Supreme Court concurred that a search took place, a lower court will make the next decision in Chatrie’s case.

Chatrie previously challenged his case in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the search. Prior to having his case heard by the Supreme Court, Chatrie sent a petition to the judicial body that compared geofence warrants to general warrants.

“The Fourth Amendment was born of the Founders’ revulsion for general warrants and writs of assistance — instruments that allowed the government to search first and develop suspicions later,” the petition to the Supreme Court said.

At the time, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, spoke out against Chatrie’s attempts to have the case tossed by arguing that he “took no steps to protect his location from disclosure, such as pausing the Location History feature he had enabled or adjusting, deactivating, or forgoing his cell phone during his crime.”


Round out your reading

Tags: ,

Straight Arrow
Fear No Fact.

Don't just take our word for it.


Center-rated reporting

According to media bias experts at AllSides

AllSides Center-rated reporting May 2026

Transparent and credible

Awarded a perfect reliability rating from NewsGuard

100/100

Welcome back to trustworthy journalism.

Find out more

Why this story matters

The Supreme Court's decision leaves unresolved whether law enforcement can use geofence warrants to collect location data from phones near a crime scene without violating Fourth Amendment protections.

Location data and legal exposure

Google location data from 19 phones, including those of people other than the eventual suspect, was collected under a single court-approved warrant in this case.

Fourth Amendment question unresolved

The Supreme Court confirmed a search occurred but sent the case back to a lower court, meaning the legal standard for geofence warrants remains unsettled.

User settings cited by government

The Solicitor General argued Chatrie had enabled Location History and took no steps to disable it, framing voluntary phone settings as relevant to legal exposure.

Straight Arrow
Fear No Fact.

Don't just take our word for it.


Center-rated reporting

According to media bias experts at AllSides

AllSides Center-rated reporting May 2026

Transparent and credible

Awarded a perfect reliability rating from NewsGuard

100/100

Welcome back to trustworthy journalism.

Find out more