Bank Robber Challenges Conviction Based on His Cellphone's Location Data (apnews.com) 22
An anonymous reader shared this report from the Associated Pres:
Okello Chatrie's cellphone gave him away. Chatrie made off with $195,000 from the bank he robbed in suburban Richmond, Virginia, and eluded the police until they turned to a powerful technological tool that erected a virtual fence and allowed them collect the location history of cellphone users near the crime scene... Now the Supreme Court will decide whether geofence warrants violate the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches... Chatrie's appeal is one of two cases being argued Monday...
Civil libertarians say that geofences amount to fishing expeditions that subject many innocent people to searches of private records merely because their cellphones happened to be in the vicinity of a crime. A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the technique could "unleash a much broader wave of similar reverse searches," law professors who study digital surveillance wrote the court... In Chatrie's case, the geofence warrant invigorated an investigation that had stalled. After determining that Chatrie was near the Call Federal Credit Union in Midlothian around the time it was robbed in May 2019, police obtained a search warrant for his home. They found nearly $100,000 in cash, including bills wrapped in bands signed by the bank teller. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nearly 12 years in prison. Chatrie's lawyers argued on appeal that none of the evidence should have been used against him. They challenged the warrant as a violation of his privacy because it allowed authorities to gather the location history of people near the bank without having any evidence they had anything to do with the robbery.
Prosecutors argued that Chatrie had no expectation of privacy because he voluntarily opted into Google's location history. A federal judge agreed that the search violated Chatrie's rights, but allowed the evidence to be used because the officer who applied for the warrant reasonably believed he was acting properly.
Civil libertarians say that geofences amount to fishing expeditions that subject many innocent people to searches of private records merely because their cellphones happened to be in the vicinity of a crime. A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the technique could "unleash a much broader wave of similar reverse searches," law professors who study digital surveillance wrote the court... In Chatrie's case, the geofence warrant invigorated an investigation that had stalled. After determining that Chatrie was near the Call Federal Credit Union in Midlothian around the time it was robbed in May 2019, police obtained a search warrant for his home. They found nearly $100,000 in cash, including bills wrapped in bands signed by the bank teller. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nearly 12 years in prison. Chatrie's lawyers argued on appeal that none of the evidence should have been used against him. They challenged the warrant as a violation of his privacy because it allowed authorities to gather the location history of people near the bank without having any evidence they had anything to do with the robbery.
Prosecutors argued that Chatrie had no expectation of privacy because he voluntarily opted into Google's location history. A federal judge agreed that the search violated Chatrie's rights, but allowed the evidence to be used because the officer who applied for the warrant reasonably believed he was acting properly.
Throw away the key (Score:1)
It seems like the Court selected this case for review because it represents an example where the challenge has no actual justice element behind it and they can easily declare that it has no legal merit, raising the bar for people falsely accused to use procedural means to escape the injustice. Of course their intent is to let law enforcement benefit naturally from new technology. They don't really care about the negative side effects, they've got a culture war to fight.
uh yeah that's how it almost always works (Score:4, Insightful)
Double standard? (Score:5, Insightful)
"the officer who applied for the warrant reasonably believed he was acting properly. "
Ignorance of the law does not make it okay.
Re: (Score:2)
exactly - at best that means the officer can't be charged for a violation of others rights - not a free card to violate their rights and then use the fruit of that illegal activity.
Re:Double standard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, when I first heard about qualified immunity (I do not live in the USA) I was gobsmacked. I can't believe it passed constitutional muster.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, all it did was codify how law enforcement has always operated in the US, all the way back to the founding and writing of the constitution. The police in the US were a combination of essentially private corporate armies and regional gangs that went 'legitimate' since there was nothing to fight them with.
It does when it's a cop (Score:2)
Oh, they picked a juicy one... (Score:2)
Warrant and Third Party Doctrine (Score:2)
In this case, there was a warrant and the established precedent of the Third Party Doctrine, which hopefully the court reigns in.
Blows my mind how courts haven't done anything about the networks of license plate readers tracking everyone's locations into a historical searchable database with poor access controls, which have neither of those qualifiers.
Re: (Score:2)
Bobert and Massie introduced a bill last week to nuke Third Party Doctrine.
Odds are rhe Uniparty defeats it, but hey.
I'm always amazed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Turning off location services isn't enough. You can still be roughly located by watching what cell towers your phone connects to.
You could put your phone in wireless mode, but who knows if that's completely safe? Or turn it off, but is that 100% safe? Or best plan, especially if you're planning on robbing a bank, leave your phone at home.
It should still be illegal to do a warrantless location search for someone's phone, no matter what technology is used.
Re: (Score:2)
I meant airplane mode above, obviously. D'oh.
Re: (Score:2)
People don't turn off their location services not because of privacy but because it just wrecks your battery.
Sure, if you're talking a badly behaving 3rd party app that constantly requests your location in the background, but restricting all your 3rd party apps to "allowed while using" seems to work well enough for me. Then again, I'm using an iPhone 15 Pro and not a relic from a decade ago.
Of course, as someone else already mentioned, this doesn't actually prevent LEOs from tracking you down, but it might annoy Facebook's ad algorithm a bit (not that you should even give Facebook location access anyway).
The lesson here kids (Score:2)
So security cameras = bad? (Score:3)
Point being, these arguments seem pretty equivalent, just something to think about.
Wait! What? (Score:2)
They challenged the warrant as a violation of his privacy because it allowed authorities to gather the location history of people near the bank without having any evidence they had anything to do with the robbery.
Gathering other people's location data was a violation of Chatrie's privacy? What if I was one of those "other people" and I say I don't care if the police accessed my location data. And every other innocent person in that net said the same thing? Chatrie can't hide behind my rights.
So, no video allowed either? (Score:2)
When looking at a video recording from around the crime scene, it shows more than one person at a particular place/time. Any or none of them could be guilty of the crime, but all are observed on video.
When looking at a list of phones present from around the crime scene, it lists more than one person at a particular place/time. Any or none of them could be guilty of the crime, but all are on the list.
I'm not sure I see a particular distinction between the two.