Law Offices of Thomas Jacobs

04/25/2026

I've been saying for years that these warrants are illegal!

The Supreme Court is currently considering whether digital geofence warrants violate the Fourth Amendment in the landmark case Chatrie v. United States. Oral arguments for the case are scheduled for April 27, 2026.

The Court's decision will address a significant circuit split over whether these "reverse search" warrants—which compel companies like Google to provide data on every device within a specific area and timeframe—constitute unconstitutional "general warrants".

Key Arguments and Legal Context

The Petitioner's Stance (Okello Chatrie): Attorneys for Chatrie argue that geofence warrants are modern-day "general warrants" that allow police to "search first and develop suspicions later". They contend that individuals maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy in their location data, even if stored by a third party.

The Government's Stance: Federal prosecutors argue that no "search" occurs because users voluntarily opt into location-tracking services. They further maintain that these warrants are narrowly tailored by time and location to identify potential suspects and witnesses.

Circuit Split:

The Fifth Circuit ruled in United States v. Smith (2024) that geofence warrants are inherently unconstitutional because they lack the specific particularity required by the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Circuit (en banc) affirmed a lower court's denial of suppression in Chatrie's case, with many judges finding that the "good faith" exception applied even if the warrant itself was problematic.

Timeline and Potential Impact

Oral Argument: April 27, 2026.

Expected Ruling: A final decision is anticipated by the end of the Court’s term in June 2026.
Implications: A ruling against geofence warrants could drastically limit how law enforcement uses bulk digital data, potentially affecting other investigative tools like "keyword warrants" that identify everyone who searched for a specific term online.

U.S. Congress legislation, Congressional Record debates, Members of Congress, legislative process educational resources presented by the Library of Congress

10/25/2023

Vamanos Serpientes!

06/27/2022

In Dobbs v. JWHO the court overturned 50 years of precedent holding that women have a federally protected, Constitutional right to privacy in health care, which includes the right to obtain medical services to terminate a pregnancy if they so choose. In Dobbs, the court ruled that the SCOTUS decision in Roe v. Wade (and it's lesser known companion case Casey) improperly derived this fundamental right from the implied "privacy clause" of the Fourth Amendment and effectively revoked that right, leaving the matter to the individual states to decide form themselves.

The decision in Dobbs is hundreds of pages long, and I have not read it all. Suffice to say however that I regard this as a reckless and imprudent decision overturning 50 years of precedent that afforded women a 4A protection against what will now certainly be demonstrated to be arbitrary and capricious, religious based laws seeking to force women to carry a pregnancy to term. The fallout from this decision will be decades long as our current laws make it unlikely that a Constitutional Amendment will be passed so long as LAND continues to vote as effectively as PEOPLE where States of significantly lesser population get a vote in the Senate on the issues on par with States like New York, California and Massachusetts.

Arizona is a "trigger law" State, which means its medieval, anti-choice laws are already in effect. Local jurisdictions are already taking sides and chaos has already settled in as Arizona Planned Parenthood has discontinued abortion services and effectively shut its doors until they figure out how the SCOTUS taking away 50 years of a woman's right to privacy and choice in family planning will affect their role in women's health.

Arizona law also provides that a woman may file a paternity suit against a man who fathers a child with her from moment of conception, and he is liable for damages/support from day 1, including medical services, lost wages due to leave or illness related to pregnancy or doctor's orders, as well as prenatal supplies, transportation for medical services and a myriad of other expenses traditionally borne by women.

Anyone seeking to enforce such rights should consult with this office (free of charge) or the Arizona Attorney General Child Support Enforcement Division. In theory, if a woman who lives in Arizona declares that she would abort a pregnancy but for the law, the State of Arizona may potentially be liable for forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term for up to 18 years of support if the father of the child fails to support the child (including health insurance and education). Think about it.

There were over 900,000 abortions in the United States in 2021. There were 135,000 adoptions.

06/27/2022

In Vega v. Tekoh the court held that a violation of the prophylactic rules described in Miranda v. Arizona does not provide a basis for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For those unfamiliar with civil rights law, this provision of the Civil Rights Act provides an avenue for citizens deprived of a Federal right (life, liberty or property) by someone acting "under color of state law" to sue for damages and equitable relief, including (in some cases) punitive damages against the individual causing the harm.

As most are aware, Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark decision that established a minimum set of rights applicable to police questioning of a suspect under arrest, and derived from the Fifth Amendment. While most believe that the so-called Miranda Warnings were created by the SCOTUS, they were in fact a creation of law enforcement intended to address the concerns and requirements of the Court's decision in that case. Before a suspect in a criminal investigation may be questioned while under arrest, the court held, they must be advised of a right to remain silent. Furthermore, the person must be made aware that anything they say will be held against them. Finally, police must advise that the suspect has a right to the presence of an attorney during questioning, and that if they cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for them. It is essential that, before proceeding with questioning the arrestee, police must ensure that the person is aware of their rights and has knowingly and intelligently chosen to waive those rights. Otherwise any statement made cannot be used by the State in any prosecution. While there are some technical exceptions, that has been the basic rule for the past 60 years.

In Vega v. Tekoh the issue was whether failure to provide Miranda Warnings constitutes a cognizable deprivation of Constitutional rights (life, liberty or property) such that this would be actionable under the Civil Rights Act. The court simply held it was not. Note that this decision is narrow, and generally addresses a rights violation which does not directly lead to damages. While the plaintiff obviously believed that a resulting conviction for a criminal offense constitutes "damages" arising from the violation, the Court disagreed. This decision does not really affect application of Miranda, violation of which still invokes the "exclusionary rule" providing for exclusion of evidence obtained from violation of Constitutional rights, as well as any evidence derived from that evidence.

06/27/2022

In NYSRPA v. Bruen the court held New York’s "proper-cause" requirement for obtaining an unrestricted license to carry a concealed fi***rm violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Second Amendment advocates rightly hail this as a victory for gun owners, as the decision expanded prior rulings addressing the right to keep and bear arms at one's home (See D.C. v. Heller) by ruling that the State may not unreasonably restrict the right to carry a gun (concealed or not) outside of one's home. The court held that the NYS provision requiring a showing of "proper cause" was unduly restrictive of the 2A right.

While this decision does not touch in any way on the issue of right to purchase or possess a fi***rm based on criminal history, civil mental health findings or other "red flag law" matters, it does appeal to significantly limit the Government's ability to prevent citizens from carrying guns in public places.

In an odd twist, Justice Thomas's Opinion (for the court) elevates 2A rights above other Constitutional rights. In all other cases addressing Constitutional rights, the court first asks if the right exists, then asks if there is an appropriate reason to abrogate the right based on a compelling or important government need. In gun cases, Thomas wrote, the only inquiry is whether there is a historical analogy to the current regulation deriving from the moments the Second Amendment was passed or the 14th amendment made applicable to the states.

Legal scholars and pundits will be trying to decipher this language for decades to come. My best take on it is that the SCOTUS wants gun control advocates to show that there is a historical precedent for the gun restriction that can be traced back to the 1790's or late 1860's, when the 2A and 14A were created. Certainly by the late 1860's there were a myriad of gun restrictions, mostly in cities or more violent western townships such as Dodge City and Tombstone (both had "no guns in town" laws due to the high number of violent incidents). One might argue, however, that the laws of the 1860's were irrelevant since the 2A existed for decades before, and the 14A, inter alia, made the 2A binding on the States without changing its language or meaning.

Concurring Justices made sure to remark that the decision is not intended to affect "red flag law" situations, but I doubt that there are any laws from the 1790's that restricted the mentally ill from owning guns, for which William H. Bonney. aka Henry McCarty aka Billy the Kid was no doubt grateful.

06/27/2022

Well it has certainly been a tough season for SCOTUS opinions. The new "conservative" court has really been eager to be on the side of law enforcement, as expected. Add to that three Trump-appointed Justices who vowed under oath that they would not reverse Roe v. Wade seem to have changed their minds (lied) about that, and now we are set back about 50 years for women's rights.

The three most prominent decisions on "hot button" issues are New York State R***e & Pistol Assn v. Bruen (20-843), Vegas v. Tekoh (142 S.Ct. 858) and of course Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org. (19-13392).

In NYSRPA v. Bruen the court held New York’s "proper-cause" requirement for obtaining an unrestricted license to carry a concealed fi***rm violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

In Vega v. Tekoh the court held that a violation of the prophylactic rules described in Miranda v. Arizona does not provide a basis for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

In Dobbs v. JWHO the court overturned 50 years of precedent holding that women have a federally protected, Constitutional right to privacy in health care, which includes the right to obtain medical services to terminate a pregnancy if they so choose. In Dobbs, the court ruled that the SCOTUS decision in Roe v. Wade (and it's lesser known companion case Casey) improperly derived this fundamental right from the implied "privacy clause" of the Fourth Amendment and effectively revoked that right, leaving the matter to the individual states to decide form themselves.

To avoid an excessively lengthy comment, I will address each case in a separate post.