Supreme Court Decision on Armed Robbery Case Impacts Fourth Amendment Interpretation

A significant ruling in a seven-year-old armed robbery case has been noted by some Justices of the Supreme Court for its potential “significant” impact on the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.

In 2019, a man faced charges for robbing a credit union at gunpoint, ultimately stealing close to $200,000.

Amid a lack of immediate suspects in the robbery in Midlothian, Virginia, authorities acquired a warrant requiring Google to provide anonymous location data for all devices within 150 meters of the bank during a critical hour post-robbery.

This process involved a careful sequence: first, law enforcement gathered the data, then they pinpointed a smaller subset, and finally, Google was asked for details on three specific devices. The result was the disclosure of names, phone numbers, and account information.

Among those affected was Okello Chattry, whose data indicated his presence at the crime scene, while also revealing additional location details from other times. It was reported that this information prompted authorities to secure warrants to search two properties linked to Chattry, resulting in the discovery of “$100,000 in stolen cash, firearms, and other incriminating notes.”

This led to a federal indictment against the 24-year-old.

Recently, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the warrant utilized by the police to gain access to historical cell phone location information constituted a search in the context of Chattry vs. United States, relating to the Fourth Amendment.

The decision was reached with a 6-3 vote, with Justice Elena Kagan representing the majority, alongside Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, John Roberts, and Sonia Sotomayor.

Kagan noted, “Individuals have a reasonable expectation that location records from their cell phones will remain private, and police overstep constitutional boundaries when seeking such information, even briefly and from a third party.”

In contrast, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas, expressed dissent, arguing that this ruling could “send seismic waves through Fourth Amendment principles,” although asserting it wouldn’t affect Chattry’s specific case.

Kagan and her fellow justices pointed out that the government conducts “investigations” when trespassing into areas individuals intend to keep private, with an expectation of privacy deemed reasonable by society.

Chattry eventually pleaded guilty to the robbery charge and received a nearly 12-year prison sentence, along with three years of supervised release.