WASHINGTON – Okello Chatrie’s cellphone gave him away.
Chatrie stole $195,000 from a bank in suburban Richmond, Virginia, and managed to evade capture for some time. However, police utilized an advanced technology known as a geofence warrant, which allowed them to collect location data from cellphones near the crime scene. This technology effectively created a virtual barrier to track potential suspects.
When investigators obtained a geofence warrant from Google, they discovered that Chatrie’s cellphone was one of the few devices detected near the bank at the time of the robbery. This case has now reached the Supreme Court, which will determine whether geofence warrants infringe upon the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. This legal dilemma is particularly intriguing as it challenges how a constitutional right established in 1791 applies to modern technology that the founding fathers could never have imagined.
Chatrie’s case is one of two significant matters being discussed in the Supreme Court. The other case involves Bayer, a large agrochemical company, which is trying to block numerous state lawsuits claiming that its popular herbicide, Roundup, may cause cancer.
Geofence warrants reverse the traditional method of identifying suspects. Instead of first determining who the suspect is and then obtaining a warrant to search that person’s home or phone, police can use geofence warrants to identify anyone who was near the crime scene without having a specific suspect in mind.
These warrants have proven useful in solving cold cases and other crimes where there is no clear evidence of the suspect’s identity, such as surveillance footage. However, civil rights advocates argue that geofence warrants can lead to invasive searches of innocent people’s private data simply because their phones were in the vicinity of a crime. A ruling favoring this technique could lead to an increase in similar searches, raising serious concerns about privacy and civil liberties, according to legal scholars.
Geofence warrants have also been used in high-profile investigations, including identifying individuals involved in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot and discovering suspects in various murder cases across states such as California, Georgia, and North Carolina.
Experts from an academic group that aims to bridge the gap between law enforcement and communities suggest that the Supreme Court should not take an all-or-nothing stance in Chatrie’s case. They argue that while some judicial oversight is necessary, a complete ban on geofence warrants could hinder legitimate police work.
In Chatrie’s situation, the geofence warrant helped revive an investigation that had stagnated. Once police established that Chatrie’s phone was near Call Federal Credit Union during the robbery in May 2019, they secured a search warrant for his home. This led to the discovery of nearly $100,000 in cash, including bills wrapped in bands signed by the bank teller.
Chatrie eventually pleaded guilty and received a nearly 12-year prison sentence. His attorneys contended that the evidence gathered should not have been admissible, as they believed the warrant violated his privacy rights by allowing authorities to collect location data from people nearby without any evidence linking them to the robbery. Prosecutors countered that Chatrie had no reasonable expectation of privacy because he had consented to Google’s location tracking features.
A federal judge acknowledged that the search violated Chatrie’s rights but permitted the evidence to be used, reasoning that the officer who requested the warrant acted under a reasonable belief that he was following the law. The federal appeals court in Richmond upheld this conviction, although it was a divided ruling. In contrast, another federal appeals court in New Orleans deemed geofence warrants as “general warrants” that violate the Fourth Amendment.
In the Supreme Court’s previous case regarding digital searches, they ruled 5-4 in favor of a defendant whose movements were tracked without a warrant through cellphone tower data for nearly four months. An important question in that case, which also arises in Chatrie’s, is whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy that would warrant Fourth Amendment protections.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that information shared with third parties, like Google, may not be considered private. However, Chief Justice John Roberts noted in his majority opinion that the capabilities of cellphones and the vast amount of personal data they collect herald “seismic shifts in digital technology” that must be acknowledged in today’s legal landscape.
