News and analysis right to your inbox. Click to get Ballotpedia’s newsletters!

Chatrie v. United States: Difference between revisions

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
No edit summary
(case scheduled + other updates)
 
Line 7: Line 7:
|Term = 2025
|Term = 2025
|Court = [[United States Supreme Court]]
|Court = [[United States Supreme Court]]
|Important dates = Pending
|Important dates = {{Greener| start=04/27/2026 10:00am CST| before=Argument:| after=Argued:}} April 27, 2026
|Outcome = Pending
|Outcome = Pending
|Vote =
|Vote =
Line 15: Line 15:
|Court membership = [[John Roberts (Supreme Court)|Chief Justice John Roberts]] • [[Clarence Thomas (Supreme Court)|Clarence Thomas]] • [[Samuel Alito]] • [[Sonia Sotomayor]] • [[Elena Kagan]] • [[Neil Gorsuch]] • [[Brett Kavanaugh]] • [[Amy Coney Barrett]] • [[Ketanji Brown Jackson]]
|Court membership = [[John Roberts (Supreme Court)|Chief Justice John Roberts]] • [[Clarence Thomas (Supreme Court)|Clarence Thomas]] • [[Samuel Alito]] • [[Sonia Sotomayor]] • [[Elena Kagan]] • [[Neil Gorsuch]] • [[Brett Kavanaugh]] • [[Amy Coney Barrett]] • [[Ketanji Brown Jackson]]
}}
}}
'''''Chatrie v. United States''''' is a case scheduled for argument before the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] during the court's [[Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026|October 2025-2026 term]].  
'''''Chatrie v. United States''''' is a case {{Greener| start=04/27/2026 10:00am CST| before=scheduled for argument| after=argued}} before the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] on April 27, 2026, during the court's [[Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026|October 2025-2026 term]].


{{TLDRbox
{{TLDRbox
<!--| '''[[#Background|The issue]]:''' The case {{Greener| start=6/30/2026| before=concerns| after=concerned}} Xenter brief explanation of law related to the case.X [[#Background|Click here]] to learn more about the case's background.-->
| '''[[#Background|The issue]]:''' The case {{Greener| start=6/30/2026| before=concerns| after=concerned}} the Fourth Amendment. [[#Background|Click here]] to learn more about the case's background.
| '''[[#Questions presented|The questions presented]]:''' "1. Whether the execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment."<ref name=qp>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/25-00112qp.pdf ''Supreme Court of the United States,'' "25-112 CHATRIE V. UNITED STATES QP", January 16, 2026]</ref>
| '''[[#Questions presented|The questions presented]]:''' "1. Whether the execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment."<ref name=qp>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/25-00112qp.pdf ''Supreme Court of the United States,'' "25-112 CHATRIE V. UNITED STATES QP", January 16, 2026]</ref>
| '''[[#Outcome|The outcome]]:''' The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.
| '''[[#Outcome|The outcome]]:''' The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Line 31: Line 31:
The following are the parties to this case:<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-112.html ''Supreme Court of the United States'', "No. 25-112," accessed February 10, 2026]</ref>
The following are the parties to this case:<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-112.html ''Supreme Court of the United States'', "No. 25-112," accessed February 10, 2026]</ref>


*'''Petitioner''': Okello T. Chatrie
*'''Petitioner''': Okello T. Chatrie (Jenner & Block LLP)
**''Legal counsel'': Adam G. Unikowsky
**''Legal counsel'': Adam G. Unikowsky
*'''Respondent''': United States  
*'''Respondent''': United States  
**''Legal counsel'': D. John Sauer
**''Legal counsel'': {{SGSauer}}


The following summary of the case was published by [https://www.oyez.org/about Oyez], a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and the Chicago-Kent College of Law:<ref name=Oyez>[https://www.oyez.org/cases/2025/25-112 ''Oyez'', "Chatrie v. United States," accessed February 10, 2026]</ref>
The following summary of the case was published by [https://www.oyez.org/about Oyez], a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and the Chicago-Kent College of Law:<ref name=Oyez>[https://www.oyez.org/cases/2025/25-112 ''Oyez'', "Chatrie v. United States," accessed February 10, 2026]</ref>


{{quote|
{{quote|Okello Chatrie was arrested in connection with the armed robbery of a bank in Richmond, Virginia, where an individual entered the Call Federal Credit Union, threatened employees and patrons with a handgun, and escaped with $195,000. The robbery was captured by surveillance footage, which showed the perpetrator appearing to talk on a cellphone. Lacking viable leads, Detective Joshua Hylton applied for a ‘geofence warrant’ in June 2019. This novel form of warrant compelled Google to provide location data for all devices that had been near the robbery site within a one-hour window around the time of the crime. The geofence specified a 150-meter radius centered on the bank, encompassing not only the crime scene but also public streets, private residences, a hotel, a church, and a restaurant.
Okello Chatrie was arrested in connection with the armed robbery of a bank in Richmond, Virginia, where an individual entered the Call Federal Credit Union, threatened employees and patrons with a handgun, and escaped with $195,000. The robbery was captured by surveillance footage, which showed the perpetrator appearing to talk on a cellphone. Lacking viable leads, Detective Joshua Hylton applied for a ‘geofence warrant’ in June 2019. This novel form of warrant compelled Google to provide location data for all devices that had been near the robbery site within a one-hour window around the time of the crime. The geofence specified a 150-meter radius centered on the bank, encompassing not only the crime scene but also public streets, private residences, a hotel, a church, and a restaurant.


Google responded with anonymized location data of devices within the geofence during the specified time. The government then requested two additional sets of data from Google: (1) expanded location data from nine of the original nineteen users, covering movements outside the geofence over a longer timeframe, and (2) identifying information for three of those users. One account belonged to Chatrie. Based on this data, law enforcement identified him as the suspect, arrested him, and charged him in federal court.
Google responded with anonymized location data of devices within the geofence during the specified time. The government then requested two additional sets of data from Google: (1) expanded location data from nine of the original nineteen users, covering movements outside the geofence over a longer timeframe, and (2) identifying information for three of those users. One account belonged to Chatrie. Based on this data, law enforcement identified him as the suspect, arrested him, and charged him in federal court.


Chatrie moved to suppress the location data obtained through the geofence warrant, arguing that it violated the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that the warrant likely violated the Fourth Amendment but declined to suppress the evidence under the good-faith exception. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion. While the panel sharply disagreed both on whether a Fourth Amendment search had occurred and whether the warrant was constitutionally valid, all judges agreed that any defect was ultimately excused under the good-faith exception.
Chatrie moved to suppress the location data obtained through the geofence warrant, arguing that it violated the Fourth Amendment. The [[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia|U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia]] held that the warrant likely violated the Fourth Amendment but declined to suppress the evidence under the good-faith exception. The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit]], sitting en banc, {{affirmed}} the district court’s denial of the suppression motion. While the panel sharply disagreed both on whether a Fourth Amendment search had occurred and whether the warrant was constitutionally valid, all judges agreed that any defect was ultimately excused under the good-faith exception.}}
}}


To learn more about this case, see the following:
To learn more about this case, see the following:
Line 55: Line 53:
The following timeline details key events in this case:
The following timeline details key events in this case:


*'''April 27, 2026:''' The U.S. Supreme Court {{Greener| start=04/27/2026 10:00am CST| before=will hear| after=heard}} oral argument.
*'''January 16, 2026:''' The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
*'''January 16, 2026:''' The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
*'''July 28, 2025:''' Okello T. Chatrie appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
*'''July 28, 2025:''' Okello T. Chatrie appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
*'''April 30, 2025:''' The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit]] affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
*'''April 30, 2025:''' The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit]] {{affirmed}} the decision of the [[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia]].


==Questions presented==
==Questions presented==

Latest revision as of 19:20, 17 February 2026


Supreme Court of the United States
Chatrie v. United States
Docket number: 25-112
Term: 2025
Court: United States Supreme Court
Important dates
Argument: April 27, 2026
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson

Chatrie v. United States is a case scheduled for argument before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 27, 2026, during the court's October 2025-2026 term.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerns the Fourth Amendment. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "1. Whether the execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment."[1]
  • The outcome: The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[2]

    • Petitioner: Okello T. Chatrie (Jenner & Block LLP)
      • Legal counsel: Adam G. Unikowsky
    • Respondent: United States

    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez, a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and the Chicago-Kent College of Law:[3]

    “ Okello Chatrie was arrested in connection with the armed robbery of a bank in Richmond, Virginia, where an individual entered the Call Federal Credit Union, threatened employees and patrons with a handgun, and escaped with $195,000. The robbery was captured by surveillance footage, which showed the perpetrator appearing to talk on a cellphone. Lacking viable leads, Detective Joshua Hylton applied for a ‘geofence warrant’ in June 2019. This novel form of warrant compelled Google to provide location data for all devices that had been near the robbery site within a one-hour window around the time of the crime. The geofence specified a 150-meter radius centered on the bank, encompassing not only the crime scene but also public streets, private residences, a hotel, a church, and a restaurant.

    Google responded with anonymized location data of devices within the geofence during the specified time. The government then requested two additional sets of data from Google: (1) expanded location data from nine of the original nineteen users, covering movements outside the geofence over a longer timeframe, and (2) identifying information for three of those users. One account belonged to Chatrie. Based on this data, law enforcement identified him as the suspect, arrested him, and charged him in federal court.

    Chatrie moved to suppress the location data obtained through the geofence warrant, arguing that it violated the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that the warrant likely violated the Fourth Amendment but declined to suppress the evidence under the good-faith exception. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion. While the panel sharply disagreed both on whether a Fourth Amendment search had occurred and whether the warrant was constitutionally valid, all judges agreed that any defect was ultimately excused under the good-faith exception.[4]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[1]

    Questions presented:
    “ 1. Whether the execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.[4] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of the case will be posted here when it is made available.

    Transcript

    A transcript of the case will be posted here when it is made available.

    Outcome

    The case is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    October term 2025-2026

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 6, 2025. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions by mid-June.[5]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "25-112 CHATRIE V. UNITED STATES QP", January 16, 2026
    2. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 25-112," accessed February 10, 2026
    3. ↑ Oyez, "Chatrie v. United States," accessed February 10, 2026
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Chatrie_v._United_States&oldid=11059096"