To understand the specifics of this case, below we have quoted directly from the Petitioner’s Brief:

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 last time the Supreme Court wrestled with cell phone privacy issues was in Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), which is a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the privacy of historical cell site location information. The Court held in that case that the government violates the Fourth Amendment when accessing historical cell phone Iocation records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant. That case, however, was after a suspect was identified, making it unlike the current case before the Supreme Court.

We receive terabytes of data in discovery for our cases. Motions to suppress can be filed for all of the data seized from search warrants of phones. We are cognizant of the ever changing landscape of Fourth Amendment case law. We ensure that law enforcement follows the appropriate procedures for every single case. Contact us now if you have a case you would like to discuss.

What will this mean to clients charged with trafficking or possessing fentanyl? This concept has been debated for a few years now. Unfortunately, it is now official. This executive order will increase the penalties. 18 U.S.C. §2332 imposes a maximum sentence of life in prison for violation of this statute, and, if death results, this statute permits bringing the death penalty.

Despite intensified measures targeting drug supply and trafficking, there remains a lack of substantial efforts directed toward treatment, prevention, and broader accountability. Issues surrounding pharmaceutical companies such as the Sacklers, Purdue Pharma, and the ongoing opioid epidemic continue to be areas of public concern and debate.  

While federal enforcement efforts are intensifying, the current approach may further strain the criminal justice system, especially as courts and correctional facilities contend with rising caseloads linked to fentanyl offenses. The broader public health response—including investments in addiction recovery, harm reduction, and community education—remains crucial to preventing future tragedies and supporting individuals affected by substance use disorders. As policy shifts continue, we will need to balance aggressive enforcement with meaningful support for those impacted by the opioid crisis. 

The Department of Justice is currently citing “office policy” of very tough resolutions to drug trafficking cases with zero thought on the individual details of each case.

Contact us should you or a loved one be facing a possession with intent to distribute or drug trafficking charge.

Note if your asset has been SEIZED, that means the government has taken possession of your property, but it does not mean the government owns the property legally YET….See here for details on the most recent DOJ seizures and forfeiture manual.

Criminal Forfeiture

This is taken verbatim from DOJ website

In personam (against the person) action against a defendant that includes notice of the intent to forfeit property in a criminal indictment. A criminal conviction is required, and forfeiture is part of the defendant’s sentence. Criminal forfeiture is limited to the property interests of the defendant, including any proceeds earned by the defendant’s illegal activity. Criminal forfeiture is generally limited to the property involved in the particular counts on which the defendant is convicted. As part of sentencing, a court may order the forfeiture of a specific property listed in the indictment, a sum of money as a money judgment, or other property as substitute property. The government must establish by a preponderance of the evidence the requisite connection between the crime of conviction and the asset. After a preliminary order of forfeiture is entered, a separate, ancillary proceeding begins to determine any third-party ownership interests in the property the government seeks to forfeit. The court then will enter a final order of forfeiture

Civil Forfeiture

In rem (against the property) court proceeding brought against property that was derived from or used to commit an offense, rather than against a person who committed an offense. Unlike criminal forfeiture, there is no criminal conviction required, although the government is still required to prove in court by a preponderance of evidence that the property was linked to criminal activity. The proceeding allows the court to gather anyone with an interest in the property in the same case and resolve all the issues with the property at one time.

In a civil forfeiture case, the government is the plaintiff, the property is considered the defendant, and any person who claims an interest in the property is a claimant. Civil forfeiture allows the government to file cases against property that would not be reachable through criminal forfeiture, such as property of fugitives, terrorists, and other criminals located outside the United States. Civil forfeiture also permits recovery of assets of defendants who have died or where the wrongdoer cannot be identified.

Administrative Forfeiture In rem (against the property) action that permits personal property to be forfeited to the United States without filing a case in federal court. The administrative forfeiture process occurs before the agency that seized the assets when no one has filed a claim contesting the seizure. There are many procedural requirements, including strict time limits and noticing requirements, designed to protect the interests and rights of property holders. Any seizure of property subject to administrative forfeiture must be based on probable cause. The primary benefit of administrative forfeiture is to avoid burdening the courts with judicial actions when no one contests the forfeiture of the seized property.

This last one (administrative forfeiture) needs translated a bit. You need to first assert a claim to the property and then it goes to the civil forfeiture route.

A person who files an administrative petition is not contesting the forfeiture. The petitioner either wants his/her interest in the asset to be recognized or is a victim of the crime(s) underlying the forfeiture. If the asset is forfeited to the government, the petitioner wants to be compensated for his/her interest.

But, a person who files an administrative claim is contesting the seizure and is requesting to pursue the matter in court. The claimant believes the asset was not part of an illegal activity and was not purchased through ill-gotten gains. To contest forfeiture in federal court you must file a claim.

Once you file a timely claim, it will stop the administrative forfeiture proceeding and it is then forwarded to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for further proceedings.

Any time deadlines are missed, the assets may be forfeited to the government. In just ONE year, in just ONE district, the Northern District of Georgia was responsible for collections and forfeitures of over U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Buchanan announced that the Northern District of Georgia was responsible for collections and forfeitures of over $31 million in Fiscal Year 2023. $31 million in Fiscal Year 2023.

Please contact us so we can help you protect your assets.

• You do not have more than 1 criminal history point.
• You did not use violence or credible threats of violence or possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induce another participant)
• The offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury to any person
• You were not an organizer, leader, manager or supervisor of others in the offense and not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise
• You truthfully provided the government all information related to the offense.

It is necessary for an experienced federal criminal defense attorney to ascertain what constitutes a “criminal history point” for purposes of qualifying for the “Safety Valve” provision. In addition, “truthfully providing” information to the government is another dicey area that needs an attorney present. Conaway & Strickler, PC has handled many cases involving this provision. Please feel free to contact us any time to discuss.

Getting mixed messages?

Navigating what is legal and not legal concerning marijuana in Georgia can be difficult. As the Atlanta Journal-Constitution points out, while Georgia has made medical marijuana legal in the state, growing it or importing it remains illegal. As a result, people who grow even small amounts of the plant for their own medicinal purposes can find themselves suddenly facing accusation of drug dealing and years in prison.

The situation is made even more complicated by the fact that different levels of government have taken very different attitudes towards marijuana. As the Saporta Report recently noted, Fulton County has decriminalized the possession of less than an ounce of marijuana and has called on the State of Georgia to stop arresting and jailing people in possession of small amounts of the drug.

At the state level, Georgia still considers possession of marijuana to be illegal unless for legal medicinal purposes (as stated above). At the federal level, marijuana remains strictly prohibited. The current federal administration has also indicated that it intends to crack down on marijuana offenses and has given no indication that it will loosen marijuana laws.

Laws not keeping up with attitudes

The extreme attitudes towards marijuana from federal and even some state officials do not reflect public attitudes either in Georgia or across the country. Nonetheless, laws remain severe and prison time is a very real possibility for anybody in Georgia who grows or possesses marijuana.

It is also important to remember that while municipalities may decriminalize marijuana, state and federal law takes precedence over municipal law. In other words, even in counties that have ostensibly decriminalized marijuana, those in possession of small amounts of the plant could still find themselves in legal trouble with state and federal authorities.

Criminal defense

Marijuana laws can be extremely difficult to navigate and are often contradictory. Anybody who has been accused of a drug crime should not assume that they will be let off lightly. Marijuana crimes are still prosecuted severely and those accused of such offenses need to take the accusations seriously. A criminal defense attorney can assist clients with upholding their rights and defending them both in and out of court.

It will be intesting as time progresses to see how well these intrusive practices hold up in court when we file motions to suppress in drug crimes cases or any criminal case. But, it will also be interesting to see how long this cozy relationship between corporate america and law enforcement continues.

The DEA has already been using information collected by NSA and Verizon in its drug prosecutions, and were training the agents to “recreate” how they found that data. Since Mr. Snowden revealed what the NSA has been up to, the NSA has revealed its data mining of billions of calls as well.

This new drug crimes policy will allow prosecutors to not put specific drug amounts in their indictments allowing for more leeway in sentencing. Currently, there is a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of 28g, or about an ounce, of crack cocaine. Diverting cases from the prison system to community service and drug treatment programs, to me is a no-brainer. The Smarter Sentencing Act, introduced August 1, 2013, aims to allow judges greater flexibility in sentencing at the federal level. I am interested to see if this proposed bill goes anywhere. It should.

As a criminal defense attorney who practices in both the federal and state level, I can tell you flexibility is key. Each and every case I have had has unique circumstances that deserve to be heard by the judge. At the state level, there are already “drug courts” and “mental health courts”. Both of those are examples of court systems that allow for individualized review of cases. A blanket, one size fits all approach to the criminal justice system does not work.