Okello T. Chatrie, Petitioner v. United States

The Supreme Court will decide if geofence warrants, which collect location data for every person in a specific area, violate the Fourth Amendment. This case began after police used Google data to identify Okello Chatrie as a suspect in a Virginia bank robbery. Chatrie argues that searching the data of many innocent people to find one suspect is an unconstitutional search.

This ruling could determine if the government can track your movements simply because you were near a crime scene. If the Court allows these warrants, anyone with a smartphone could be included in a police investigation without specific evidence against them. It sets a major precedent for how much privacy we expect while carrying digital devices in public.

As technology evolves, the Court must decide how 18th-century privacy protections apply to modern data. Geofence warrants are a relatively new tool that allows law enforcement to work backward from a location rather than starting with a suspect. This case fits into a broader debate about whether digital dragnets (searches that catch everyone in an area) are legal.

The Court has not yet heard oral arguments or issued a ruling in this case.

The Court must decide if police can legally sweep up the location data of hundreds of innocent people to catch one criminal.

The case is currently in the briefing stage after the Court granted certiorari (the decision to hear the case) in January 2026. The next major step will be oral arguments, though a specific date has not been scheduled yet. A final decision is expected by the end of the Court's term in early summer.

A geofence warrant asks a company like Google for the location data of every device within a specific boundary during a certain time. In this case, police used it to identify who was near a Richmond bank during a $195,000 robbery.

Because geofence warrants collect data on everyone in an area, innocent bystanders often have their private location history handed over to police. A ruling against Chatrie could mean your digital footprint is fair game for investigators if you happen to be near a crime.

The case focuses on the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court must decide if searching a massive database of location points without a specific suspect is unreasonable.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals looked at whether the search violated Chatrie's rights during his criminal trial. The Supreme Court took the case to provide a final, national answer on whether these digital dragnets are constitutional.

While oral arguments are not yet scheduled, the Court typically releases its most significant decisions by late June or early July. This case was added to the calendar in early 2026, placing it in the current term's lineup.