← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Chatrie v. United States

No. 25-112 SCOTUS · Decided SCOTUS
Cert Granted: Jan 16, 2026 Argued: Apr 27, 2026 Decided: Jun 29, 2026
📄 Read the Opinion

Decision

Opinion Kagan, J.
Concurrence Jackson, J. (joined by Sotomayor, J.)
Concurrence Gorsuch, J. (concurring in the judgment)
Dissent Alito, J. (joined by Thomas, J. as to Part I; Barrett, J. as to Parts II-B, II-C-1, and II-C-2)
Dissent Barrett, J.

The Law · How the Case Works

Opinion of the Court

Kagan, J.

Overview

Overview

A case in which the Court will decide whether execution of a geofence warrant in this case violated the Fourth Amendment.

The Facts

Facts

After a 2019 armed bank robbery in Virginia, police obtained a geofence warrant compelling Google to disclose the location data of all devices within a 17.5-acre area during the crime. Google produced anonymized data for all nearby devices, then, without additional judicial approval, was asked to deanonymize three devices, leading to the identification and arrest of Okello Chatrie. Chatrie moved to suppress, arguing the geofence warrant was an unconstitutional general warrant.

The Issue

Issue

Whether a geofence warrant compelling a technology company to disclose the identities and location data of all electronic devices within a defined geographic area at a particular time constitutes a Fourth Amendment search, and if so, whether the warrant satisfied the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement.

The Rules

Rule

Under Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), the government's warrantless acquisition of comprehensive historical cell-site location data constitutes a Fourth Amendment search. The Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement commands that warrants describe with reasonable precision the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized. Geofence warrants present novel particularity questions because they sweep in the data of all individuals, including innocent persons, present in a geographic area.

The Application

Analysis

The government argues geofence warrants are constitutionally permissible investigative tools that satisfy the Fourth Amendment. The warrant specified a geographic area and timeframe tied to a specific crime, providing the judicial oversight the Constitution requires. Law enforcement needs modern digital tools to investigate crimes effectively.

The Conclusion

Conclusion

[Awaiting opinion]

The Record · 1 original document
Court -
FiledJul 30, 2025
CL Statusactive
View on CourtListener →

No circuit court data for this case.

Cert GrantedJan 16, 2026
Statusactive
Filed (CL)Jul 30, 2025
View on CourtListener →

Decision

Opinion Kagan, J.
Concurrence Jackson, J. (joined by Sotomayor, J.)
Concurrence Gorsuch, J. (concurring in the judgment)
Dissent Alito, J. (joined by Thomas, J. as to Part I; Barrett, J. as to Parts II-B, II-C-1, and II-C-2)
Dissent Barrett, J.
SCOTUS TMR-077e1a2a Jul 28, 2026
Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support