United States v. Chatrie
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
590 F. Supp. 3d 901, 2022 WL 628905 (2022)
Facts
Although Detective Hylton had successfully obtained geofence warrants in the past, Hylton consulted government attorneys before applying for a geofence warrant to identify a bank-robbery suspect because no court had ruled on the legality of such warrants. Detective Hylton then applied for and obtained a geofence warrant compelling Google to provide cell-phone location data in three steps. In step one, the warrant demanded anonymous location data for every device with a Google account within a 150-meter radius of the bank during a one-hour window in which the robbery occurred. Under step two, Hylton had to narrow the device list obtained from step one. For that narrowed list, Google had to provide additional location data points of travel occurring outside of the originally designated radius during a two-hour window in which the robbery occurred. After Hylton reviewed the step-two data, step three required Google to provide personally identifiable information (PII) (names and contact information) for the devices Hylton requested. As a result of this process, law enforcement identified Okello Chatrie (defendant) as the suspect. The United States indicted Chatrie for robbery. Chatrie moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the geofence warrant, arguing that the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lauck, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
