Chatrie v. United States

Chatrie v. United States, No. 25-112 Argued on Apr 27 2026. For petitioner: Adam G. Unikowsky, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Eric J. Feigin, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. Question Presented: This case concerns the constitutionality of geofence warrants. For cell phone users to use certain services, their cell phones must continuously transmit their exact locations to their service providers. A geofence warrant allows law enforcement to obtain, from the service provider, the identities of users who were in the vicinity of a particular location at a particular time. In this case, law enforcement obtained, and served on Google, a geofence warrant seeking anonymized location data for every device within 150 meters of the location of a bank robbery within one hour of the robbery. After Google returned an initial list, law enforcement sought - without seeking an additional warrant - information about the movements of certain devices for a longer, two-hour period, and Google complied with that request as well. Then - again without seeking an additional warrant-law enforcement requested de-anonymized subscriber information for three devices. One of those devices belonged to petitioner Okello Chatrie. Based on the evidence derived from the geofence warrant, petitioner was convicted of armed robbery. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. 2. Whether the exclusionary rule should apply to the evidence derived from the geofence warrant. Oral Argument Links: SCOTUS Oral Argument Page Transcript PDF Docket Links: SCOTUS Docket Page Question Presented Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.) Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.) Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.) Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.) Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.) Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.) Chapters: (00:00:00) Case Call (00:00:06) ORAL ARGUMENT OF ADAM G. UNIKOWSKY (00:57:11) ORAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC J. FEIGIN (01:55:14) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ADAM G. UNIKOWSKY Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits: Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity. Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website. Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y