Chatrie v. United States
Coverage of Chatrie v. United States in the Nexus archive.
- Who is the Supreme Court’s most “ideological” justice? And does that question even make sense?
The article examines the complexity of labeling Supreme Court justices as 'ideological,' noting that judicial decisions often defy simple liberal-conservative divisions. It highlights cases like Trump v. Barbara and Chatrie v. United States, where majority coalitions included justices from different perceived ideological blocs, and discusses challenges in measuring ideology through emergency dockets.
- SCOTUS ruled that ‘geofence warrants’ are a constitutional search. What does that mean for security and privacy in NYC?
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Chatrie v. United States that 'geofence warrants' requiring tech companies to identify devices in a specific area constitute a constitutional search under the Fourth Amendment. The decision raises concerns about privacy in New York as it could impact surveillance technologies like license plate data and facial recognition, with experts warning about potential 'tireless and absolute surveillance' through expanded data access by law enforcement.
- Supreme Court rules on geofence warrants, data privacy case
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that police must obtain warrants to access stored cellphone location data from companies like Google under the Fourth Amendment. In Chatrie v. United States, the Court found that individuals retain privacy rights in their location history, even when stored by third-party companies, and sent the case back to a lower court to assess the warrant's compliance with the Fourth Amendment.
- Supreme Court rules on geofence warrants, data privacy case
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that police must obtain a warrant to access stored cellphone location data from companies like Google under the Fourth Amendment. The decision in Chatrie v. United States addressed geofence warrants, which require companies to provide location history for devices in a specific area during a time frame. The court sent the case back to a lower court to determine if the warrant used in the case met Fourth Amendment standards.
- Supreme Court rules on geofence warrants, data privacy case
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that police must obtain a warrant under the Fourth Amendment to access stored cellphone location data from companies like Google. The decision in Chatrie v. United States addressed geofence warrants used in a 2019 credit union robbery investigation, with the court stating individuals retain privacy rights in location data even when stored by third-party companies. The case was remanded to determine if the specific warrant met constitutional standards.
- Court rules that law enforcement’s use of “geofence warrant” was a “search”
The Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement's use of a geofence warrant to obtain location data from Google for a 2019 bank robbery case constituted a 'search' under the Fourth Amendment. The case was remanded to the lower court to assess whether the search was 'reasonable.'
- You can get dragged into a police investigation by proximity alone — for now
The Supreme Court is considering the privacy implications of 'geofence warrants' in the case Chatrie v. United States, where police used Google Maps' Location History to track a suspect in a 2019 bank robbery. The case raises questions about how private individuals' location data stored with tech companies truly is.
- The Supreme Court is about to decide how far geofence warrants can go
The Supreme Court is set to rule on the legality of geofence warrants, which allow law enforcement to obtain bulk digital data from device users in a specific time and location. The case, Chatrie v. United States, centers on whether these warrants violate the Fourth Amendment, with privacy advocates and civil liberties groups supporting the petitioner against the government's argument.