WASHINGTON — A man carrying a gun and a cellphone entered a federal credit union in a small town in central Virginia in May 2019 and demanded cash.
He left with $195,000 in a bag and no clue to his identity. But his smartphone was keeping track of him.
What happened next could yield a landmark ruling from the Supreme Court on the 4th Amendment and its restrictions against “unreasonable searches.”
Typically, police use tips or leads to find suspects, then seek a search warrant from a judge to enter a house or other private area to seize the evidence that can prove a crime.
Civil libertarians say the new “digital dragnets” work in reverse.
“It’s grab the data and search first. Suspicion later. That’s opposite of how our system has worked, and it’s really dangerous,” said Jake Laperruque, an attorney for the Center for Democracy & Technology.
But these new data scans can be effective in finding criminals.
Lacking leads in the Virginia bank robbery, a police detective turned to what one judge in the case called a “groundbreaking investigative tool … enabling the relentless collection of eerily precise location data.”
Cellphones can be tracked through towers, and Google stored this location history data for hundreds of millions of users. The detective sent Google a demand for information known as a “geofence warrant,” referring to a virtual fence around a particular geographic area at a specific time.
The officer sought phones that were within 150 yards of the bank during the hour of the robbery. He used that data to locate Okello Chatrie, then obtained a search warrant of his home where the cash and the holdup notes were found.
Chatrie entered a conditional guilty plea, but the Supreme Court will hear his appeal on April 27.
The justices agreed to decide whether geofence warrants violate the 4th Amendment.
The outcome may go beyond location tracking. At issue more broadly is the legal status of the vast amount of privately stored data that can be easily scanned.
This may include words or phrases found in Google searches or in emails. For example, investigators may want to know who searched for a particular address in the weeks before an arson or a murder took place there or who searched for information on making a particular type of bomb.
Judges are deeply divided on how this fits with the 4th Amendment.
Two years ago, the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans ruled “geofence warrants are general warrants categorically prohibited by the 4th Amendment.”
Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court’s liberals in a 4th Amendment privacy case in 2018.
(Alex Wong / Getty Images)
Historians of the 4th Amendment say the constitutional ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures” arose from the anger in the American colonies over British officers using general warrants to search homes and stores even when they had no reason to suspect any particular person of wrongdoing.
The National Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers relies on that contention in opposing geofence warrants.
Its lawyers argued the government obtained Chatrie’s “private location information … with an unconstitutional general warrant that compelled Google to conduct a fishing expedition through millions of Google accounts, without any basis for believing that any one of them would contain incriminating evidence.”
Meanwhile, the more liberal 4th Circuit in Virginia divided 7-7 to reject Chatrie’s appeal. Several judges explained the law was not clear, and the police officer had done nothing wrong.
“There was no search here,” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote in a concurring opinion that defended the use of this tracking data.
He pointed to Supreme Court rulings in the 1970s declaring that check records held by a bank or dialing records held by a phone company were not private and could be searched by investigators without a warrant.
Chatrie had agreed to having his location records held by Google. If financial records for several months are not private, the judge wrote, “surely this request for a two-hour snapshot of one’s public movements” is not private either.
Google changed its policy in 2023 and no longer stores location history data for all of its users. But cellphone carriers continue to receive warrants that seek tracking data.
Wilkinson, a prominent conservative from the Reagan era, also argued it would be a mistake for the courts to “frustrate law enforcement’s ability to keep pace with tech-savvy criminals” or cause “more cold cases to go unsolved. Think of a murder where the culprit leaves behind his encrypted phone and nothing else. No fingerprints, no witnesses, no murder weapon. But because the killer allowed Google to track his location, a geofence warrant can crack the case,” he wrote.
Judges in Los Angeles upheld the use of a geofence warrant to find and convict two men for a robbery and murder in a bank parking lot in Paramount.
The victim, Adbadalla Thabet, collected cash from gas stations in Downey, Bellflower, Compton and Lynwood early in the morning before driving to the bank.
After he was robbed and shot, a Los Angeles County sheriff’s detective found video surveillance that showed he had been followed by two cars whose license plates could not be seen.
The detective then sought a geofence warrant from a Superior Court judge that asked Google for location data for six designated spots on the morning of the murder.
That led to the identification of Daniel Meza and Walter Meneses, who pleaded guilty to the crimes. A California Court of Appeal rejected their 4th Amendment claim in 2023, even though the judges said they had legal doubts about the “novelty of the particular surveillance technique at issue.”
The Supreme Court has also been split on how to apply the 4th Amendment to new types of surveillance.
By a 5-4 vote, the court in 2018 ruled the FBI should have obtained a search warrant before it required a cellphone company to turn over 127 days of records for Timothy Carpenter, a suspect in a series of store robberies in Michigan.
The data confirmed Carpenter was nearby when four of the stores were robbed.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, joined by four liberal justices, said this lengthy surveillance violated privacy rights protected by the 4th Amendment.
But he described the Carpenter decision as “narrow” because it turned on the many weeks of surveillance data.
In dissent, four conservatives questioned how tracking someone’s driving violates their privacy. Surveillance cameras and license plate readers are commonly used by investigators and have rarely been challenged.
Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer relies on that argument in his defense of Chatrie’s conviction. “An individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in movements that anyone could see,” he wrote.
The justices will issue a decision by the end of June.
A 20-year-old Texan faces potential life imprisonment after an arson attack on Sam Altman’s San Francisco residence.
Published On 14 Apr 202614 Apr 2026
Authorities in the United States have charged a 20-year-old Texas man with attempted murder and arson after he allegedly threw a Molotov cocktail at the home of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.
Daniel Moreno-Gama faces two counts of attempted murder and nine other charges following last week’s arson attack on Altman’s residence in San Francisco, District Attorney of San Francisco Brooke Jenkins said on Monday.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
“We interpret this behaviour for just what it is: An attempt on Mr Altman’s life and an extreme danger to those around him and those who work for his company,” Jenkins said at a news conference.
“As the DA, my office will prosecute this case to the fullest extent of the law.”
Moreno-Gama is also separately facing federal charges of attempted damage and destruction of property by means of explosives, and possession of an unregistered firearm.
Moreno-Gama faces the possibility of life in prison under the charges.
San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins speaks during a news conference on Monday in San Francisco [Jeff Chiu/AP]
Moreno-Gama, from Houston, Texas, was captured on a security camera hurling an incendiary device at Altman’s home shortly after 3:30am local time on Friday, according to an FBI affidavit.
The suspect then travelled to OpenAI’s San Francisco headquarters, where he struck the building’s glass doors with a chair and stated his intention to “burn it down and kill anyone inside”, according to the affidavit filed in US District Court for the Northern District of California.
After arresting Moreno-Gama at the scene, police recovered incendiary devices, a container of kerosene, a lighter, and a document espousing opposition to artificial intelligence and tech executives, including Altman, according to the affidavit.
The document recovered at the scene stated that Moreno-Gama had killed or attempted to kill Altman, and that he “must lead by example and show that I am fully sincere in my message”, according to the filing.
Altman, whose company’s release of ChatGPT in 2022 marked a watershed in the rollout of AI, has become a lightning rod for heated discussion about the potential risks and benefits of the rapidly advancing technology.
In a blog post after Friday’s arson attack, Altman said that while much criticism of the tech industry was driven by sincere concerns about the “incredibly high stakes” of AI, it was time to turn down the heat of the public debate.
“While we have that debate, we should de-escalate the rhetoric and tactics and try to have fewer explosions in fewer homes, figuratively and literally,” Altman said.
In her news conference, Jenkins criticised what she described as “incendiary rhetoric” about the potential impact of AI on society.
“In no way should we be at the point where a man could have lost his life over differences of opinion and concerns,” she said.
Viewers think Megan Walsh could be the victim of the brutal Coronation Street murder later this month, and that Sam Blakeman might be the killer in a shocking twist
17:02, 09 Apr 2026Updated 17:03, 09 Apr 2026
Fans of Coronation Street think Megan Walsh is about to meet a grisly end(Image: ITV)
Fans of Coronation Street think Megan Walsh is about to meet a grisly end – with an unexpected killer.
Megan is one of five characters who could be killed off later this month in a whodunnit twist. The child groomer was recently exposed for sexually abusing her teenage pupil Will Driscoll.
She and Will have denied it, with Will manipulated into believing they are in love. It was Sam Blakeman who first rumbled the ‘romance’, with Megan and Will targeting Sam as a result.
Megan was vile, threatening him and claiming she was going to make it look as though he was spying on her. Will also pretended to be his friend in order to keep him on side, while both of them accused Sam of lying when it all came out.
The lies and what he was covering up, on top of exam stress, has had a really bad impact on Sam. As well as misusing ADHD medication, which led to a hospital dash, he’s been struggling with his mental health.
This week he’s accused Will of harassing him with menacing behaviour and sinister threats over the phone. Will has denied this, and now fans are convinced Sam is hallucinating, as he continues to spiral.
A new theory though could see things escalate, and see Sam turn killer unexpectedly. We know that Megan might die later this month, and now fans think Sam will kill her by accident.
Believing he is suffering from psychosis and is imagining things, such as Will chasing him, viewers have wondered if he will experience the same with Megan. A theory is that he will attack her and maybe even kill her believing he is in danger.
A fan posted on social media: “My gut feeling is it will be Megan and Sam is the killer.” Another fan said: “I still think it’s Megan that dies. At one point I thought Maggie would be the killer but with Sam’s psychosis storyline, I wouldn’t be surprised if he ended up snapping and killed her without realising it.”
A further theory read: “I didn’t think about Sam accidentally killing Megan. If he really is hallucinating so vividly, I could definitely see him accidentally killing her to get her away from him, even if he doesn’t realise he’s done it.”
One fan wrote: “What if Sam kills Megan because he’s in a state of psychosis and it’s lining up a storyline of ‘manslaughter by way of reduced capacity’?? What then?! #Corrie #CoronationStreet.” Another fan agreed: “My theory changes every day do we reckon Sam is gonna kill Megan #corrie?”
The ex-guitarist of Turnstile has been arrested for allegedly intentionally hitting the lead singer’s father with a car.
Brady Ebert, a founding member of the Baltimore hardcore punk band, was arrested Tuesday in Silver Spring, Md., on charges of attempted murder in the second degree and first-degree assault.
Montgomery County Police responded to a call Sunday saying a pedestrian had been struck by a car. Upon arrival at the front yard of a home, officers discovered William Yates, the 79-year-old father of Turnstile frontman Brendan Yates, with “trauma to his lower extremities,” the Baltimore Banner reported.
William Yates and his family told police that Ebert first drove up to their house “honking his horn and yelling obscenities,” per Fox 5 in Washington, D.C. Ebert then allegedly returned and hit the elder Yates with his car.
According to the Banner, police obtained surveillance video of the incident that shows Yates moving out of the way and throwing a rock at Ebert’s vehicle and Ebert then accelerating up the driveway before swerving and striking Yates with his car. Yates told police that before first responders arrived, Ebert returned once again to yell that he “deserved it.”
Turnstile told Pitchfork in a statement that Yates underwent surgery for the “severe physical trauma” he sustained during the altercation and that the band’s members are “hoping for the best possible outcome in his recovery.”
“Turnstile cut ties with Brady Ebert in 2022 in response to a consistent pattern of harmful behavior affecting himself, the band, and the community,” the “Never Enough” band said in the statement. “After exhausting every available resource to support his access to help and recovery, a boundary ultimately had to be set when healthy communication was no longer possible and he began threatening violence.”
“We have no language left for Brady,” the band added.
Formed in 2010, Turnstile broke into the mainstream with the 2021 album “Glow On,” which earned the band its first Grammy nominations. The band’s first Grammys came in February 2026 for metal performance (“Birds”) and rock album (“Never Enough”). Turnstile is scheduled to perform at both weekends of the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival later this month.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a life term in prison without parole for a defendant who was 15 when he fatally stabbed his grandfather in Mississippi, ruling that a sentencing judge need not decide that the young person was “permanently incorrigible.”
The 6-3 decision retreats somewhat from a pair of earlier rulings, which said that such life sentences for minors convicted of murder should be extremely rare and limited to cases in which there was no reason to hope the young person could be rehabilitated.
California and 24 other states have abolished life terms with no hope for parole for offenders under 18. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor said such prison terms remain shockingly common in parts of the Deep South, particularly for young people of color.
As of last year, “Louisiana had imposed LWOP [Life Without Parole] on an astonishing 57% of eligible juvenile offenders” since 2012, when the court called for restricting such sentences, she said. In 2016, the court gave these inmates a chance to seek a new sentence with possible parole, but the Mississippi courts have rejected one-fourth of such appeals, she said.
“The harm of from these sentences will not fall equally,” Sotomayor added. “The racial disparities in juvenile LWOP sentencing are stark: 70% of all youth sentenced to LWOP are children of color,” she said, citing a study from the Juvenile Law Center.
Five years ago, the court gave new hope to the more than 2,000 inmates who had been sentenced to life terms for crimes they committed as minors. The justices said they had a right to seek a new sentencing hearing and possible parole in the future. But the court’s opinion did not say precisely what judges must consider in deciding such cases.
At issue Thursday was whether the defendant’s life term with no parole should be set aside unless the judges concluded he was “incorrigible” and could not be rehabilitated.
The justices divided along ideological lines, with the six conservatives in the majority and the three liberals in dissent.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, speaking for the court in Jones vs. Mississippi, said judges are required to weigh the defendant’s age as a mitigating factor before imposing a punishment for a homicide. “The court’s decision today carefully follows” the earlier rulings, which did not prohibit such life terms, he said. Kavanaugh added that the sentencing decision remains in the hands of the judge who heard the case, and the judge need not go further and decide the defendant was beyond redemption.
“Today the court guts” its earlier rulings restricting such life terms, Sotomayor said in a sharp dissent for three liberals. She noted that one of the decisions held that “a lifetime in prison is a disproportionate sentence for all but the rarest children, those whose crimes reflect ‘irreparable corruption.’”
The outcome reflects the retirement of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Kennedy had repeatedly spoken out against harsh punishments for juvenile offenders, and he wrote the court’s ruling that ended capital punishment for them, as well as those that limited the circumstances for imposing life prison terms on those under 18.
Sotomayor said Thursday’s ruling means that even if a “juvenile’s crime reflects ‘unfortunate yet transient immaturity’, he can be sentenced to die in prison,” quoting a passage from Kennedy’s earlier opinion. Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan joined the dissent.
The case before the court began in 2004 when Brett Jones, age 15, was living with his grandparents Bertis and Madge in a small town in northern Mississippi. He and his grandfather exchanged angry words when it was learned that Jones’ girlfriend was in a bedroom upstairs. The two later fought in the kitchen, and the teenager stabbed his grandfather and fled.
He was convicted of the murder and at the time, state law mandated a sentence of life in prison without parole.
The Supreme Court overturned such mandatory sentences in 2012 and ruled in 2016 inmates may seek a new and lesser sentence. But a judge decided the life term was the proper sentence for Jones, and that decision was upheld by the state courts.
In upholding the sentence, Kavanaugh said such sentencing decisions should remain in the hands of judges who can weigh all the facts. Moreover, “our holding today does not preclude the states from imposing additional sentencing limits in cases involving defendants under 18 convicted of murder,” he said. “States may categorically prohibit life without parole for all offenders under 18. Or states may require sentencers to make extra factual findings before sentencing an offender under 18 to life without parole.”
The TikTok Killer is currently streaming on Netflix and tells the shocking case of the murder of Esther Estepa, 42, and how the social media platform helped piece the tragedy together
21:55, 18 Mar 2026Updated 22:01, 18 Mar 2026
The TikTok Killer is on Netflix(Image: Netflix)
Netflix’s chilling true crime documentary The TikTok Killer tells the horrifying story of 42-year-old Esther Estepa, whose final days were pieced together through TikTok videos, messages, and digital clues. It’s the kind of nightmare ripped straight from a thriller film – but Netflix ’s chilling true-crime documentary The TikTok Killer tells a story that is horrifyingly real.
The two-part series explores the murder of 42-year-old Esther Estepa – and the suspect at the centre of it, convicted killer-turned-TikTok influencer José Jurado Montilla. What unfolds is a disturbing case of deception, digital footprints and a man who appeared to be hiding in plain sight.
At the heart of the story is Esther – a free spirit with a love of travel. Raised in Seville, she left her hometown in 2013 to “spread her wings,” living a nomadic lifestyle across Spain while remaining incredibly close to her family – especially her mother, Josefa “Pepa” Pérez. They spoke every single day.
By 2022, Esther was trying to rebuild her life after leaving an allegedly abusive relationship. For a time, she stayed in women’s shelters across Spain, determined to start again. In August 2023, Esther met Montilla.
According to his account, the pair met at a hostel in Alicante and bonded over their shared nomadic lifestyle. They travelled together along Spain’s east coast, hiking for days and eventually reaching Gandía, near Valencia, around August 20.
He claimed their hiking journey ended when Esther became unwell, suffering from a swollen leg and severe headache, and that he accompanied her to a health centre before she left to meet friends. He insisted that was the last time he saw her.
Ensure our latest headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.
On August 23, 2023, Esther’s mother received a string of bizarre WhatsApp messages. The texts claimed Esther was broke, living on the streets in Argentina and planning a new life in Buenos Aires. But Pepa immediately sensed something was wrong.
“She didn’t have any friends there,” she says in the documentary. “It made me doubt that it was her writing it.” When she tried to call, Esther’s phone went straight to voicemail.
Even more chillingly, Esther had left behind her beloved dogs – something her family insist she would never have done voluntarily. Suspicious and frightened, Pepa demanded a voice note; otherwise, she would go to the police. None came.
After that, contact stopped completely. On August 26, Esther was officially reported missing. Then came the phone call that would change everything. Out of the blue, Montilla contacted Esther’s family, claiming he last saw her on August 21 when she left to meet friends for a job in Castellón.
But instead of stepping back, he did something deeply unsettling. He kept calling. Asking about the investigation. And, most bizarrely of all, he began retracing their journey – posting videos about it on TikTok.
To Esther’s family, alarm bells rang. What ultimately began to shift the case was something distinctly modern. Investigators began analysing Esther’s digital footprint, alongside Montilla’s own online activity. TikTok videos, messages and geolocation data allowed police to reconstruct her final movements in remarkable detail.
Crucially, his own posts placed him with Esther – effectively documenting key moments himself. Director Héctor Muniente describes becoming transfixed by the footage, noting Montilla’s ability to switch emotions instantly – from warm and engaging to cold and detached.
“It feels like watching psychopathy unfold in real time,” he suggests. For months, the case appeared to go cold. Then came a grim breakthrough.
Partial human remains – including a skull – were first discovered in a remote area near Gandía, close to Bairén Castle and a canal junction in February 2024. At the time, their identity was unknown.
It wasn’t until June 21, 2024, when further remains were found in the same location, that the full horror became clear. DNA testing later confirmed they belonged to Esther Estepa. Medical experts concluded she had died from blunt force trauma to the head.
As suspicion grew, a far darker picture of Montilla emerged. The man who had presented himself as a reflective travel influencer had, in fact, spent decades behind bars for a string of brutal killings in the 1980s in the Málaga region.
Between 1985 and 1987, he carried out four murders. For these crimes, he was sentenced to 123 years in prison. However, he was released in December 2013 after serving 28 years, following a European Court of Human Rights ruling on Spain’s “Parot Doctrine,” which changed how sentencing reductions were applied.
By the time Esther’s remains were identified, Montilla was already in custody. He had been arrested in connection with the murder of a 21-year-old student in Málaga, who was found shot in the back and neck on a family farm. DNA found on the victim’s backpack ultimately linked back to his family tree.
Prosecutors now allege that evidence recovered from his phone connects him to Esther’s assault and murder, including chilling photos and videos of a woman’s body hidden inside a sleeping bag in a remote field.
Despite this, he denies any involvement. Investigators also relied heavily on digital evidence throughout the case – not just Esther’s data, but Montilla’s own social media activity, which helped place him with her.
As of March 2026, José Jurado Montilla remains behind bars in Spain, awaiting trial for the murders of Esther Estepa and a 21-year-old man in Málaga — allegations he continues to deny.
It is a case study in manipulation — and a chilling warning about trusting online personas. A man who appeared calm, reflective and charismatic on screen, while allegedly committing acts of extreme violence, and someone who built a false, carefully curated online identity.
Perhaps the most unsettling aspect of The TikTok Killer is how ordinary everything appeared on the surface. He wasn’t hiding. He was posting videos. Gaining followers. Telling stories. All the while, investigators allege, concealing a far darker reality.
For Esther’s loved ones, this is more than a documentary. It’s a fight for answers. They became investigators themselves – analysing footage, tracking movements and refusing to let her story disappear.
But questions remain. What really happened in those final hours? And could there be more victims? Because while José Jurado Montilla documented his journey online, Esther Estepa was unknowingly living out her final days.
And for her family, the truth that followed was more devastating than they could ever have imagined.
The TikTok killer is available to stream on Netflix now.
