United States v. Chatrie, No. 3:19-cr-130 (E.D. Va.)

Topic

New Reply

[Alex5723]

https://www.nacdl.org/Content/United-States-v-Chatrie,-No-3-19-cr-130-(E-D-Va-)

In United States v. Chatrie, No. 3:19-cr-130 (E.D. Va.), Okello Chatrie was charged with armed robbery based on Google Sensorvault data obtained by law enforcement via a geofence warrant. …

CELLPHONE DRAGNET USED TO FIND BANK ROBBERY SUSPECT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, JUDGE SAYS

I. Introduction
Ratified in 1791, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to
the people the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. To that end, the Framers
prohibited the issuance of a warrant, unless that warrant was based “upon probable cause” and
unless it “particularly describ[ ed] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized.”
..The Warrant sought location data for every device present within the geofence from
4:20 p.m. to 5:20 p.m. on the day of the robbery. In keeping with Google’s established
approach, the Geo fence Warrant described a three-step process by which law enforcement would
“attempt to narrow down” the list of users for which the Government would obtain the most
invasive information. ..

..Because the Government Lacked Particularized Probable Cause as to Every
Google User in the Geofence, the Warrant Violates the Fourth Amendment

..IV. Conclusion

Despite the Court finding good faith here, the Court nonetheless strongly cautions that
this exception may not carry the day in the future. This Court will not simply rubber stamp
geofence warrants. If the Government is to continue to employ these warrants, it must take care
to establish particularized probable cause. As the legal landscape confronts newly developed
technology and further illuminates Fourth Amendment rights in the face of geofence practices,
future geofence warrants may require additional efforts to seek court approval in between Steps,
or to limit the geographic and temporal information sought. ..

AFFIDAVIT FOR SEARCH WARRANT

..The place, person or thing to be searched is described as follows:
Google LLC, which is headquartered at 1600 Google Amphitheater Parkway, Mountain View,
California 94043, and applies to Target Location: Geographical area pertaining to a radius of 150
meters around a latitude/longitude coordinate, Latitude: 37.438420, Longitude: -77.587900. It is your
affiant’s belief that the records requested are actually possessed by Google LLC, and that Google
LLC provides electronic communication service or remote computing service within the
Commonwealth of VA. ..

• This topic was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by Alex5723.
• This topic was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by Paul T.

1 user thanked author for this post.

CAS

Reply | Quote

Replies

All of you who own cell phones are not off the hook, yet. If this question arises in another District, the outcome could be different. When it is appealed by the defendant, there could be a conflicting opinion that may ultimately reach the “Gods” at SCOTUS. If so, given the philosophy of Conservative majority, you could see a further erosion of your rights. In a recent decision, SCOTUS has already began to erode Miranda.

The recent decision in Dobbs should also be a cause for concern for cell phone users, especially in states that offer bounties for people or entities who are suspected to be an ” accessory” to an abortion. Click here for some insight into the issue. Be worried, folks. Truly, be worried.

Peace, CAS

3 users thanked author for this post.

Mele20, SueW, Alex5723

Reply | Quote