Geofence warrants
Chatrie v. United States
In brief
Obtaining detailed Google location history through this geofence warrant was a Fourth Amendment search, but the Court left the warrant’s ultimate validity for further proceedings.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-3 · June 29, 2026 · Opinion by Justice Kagan
- What it’s about
- The Court held that police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they obtained Chatrie’s Google Location History through a geofence warrant, because people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in detailed cell-phone location data.
- Who it affects
- Police using geofence warrants must treat requests for detailed location histories as searches subject to Fourth Amendment limits. The decision affects investigators, Google, and people whose phones’ location data may be included in a geofence request.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court vacated the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back for further proceedings on whether the warrant’s multi-step process met Fourth Amendment requirements.
The decision extends constitutional privacy protection to detailed cell-phone location information held by a third party.
Question presented
Did the execution of the geofence warrant violate the Fourth Amendment?
What the Court decided
Holding
Police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Chatrie’s location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information. 136 F. 4th 100, vacated and remanded.
- Result
- Vacated
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Majority · 5joined the Court's opinion
- Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Gorsuchwrote separately
From the opinions
“Today, the Court takes the country down the latter path.”
What's next
The Fourth Circuit must reconsider whether the warrant’s multi-step process satisfied Fourth Amendment requirements. Police and courts must apply the Court’s conclusion that access to this detailed location data is a search.
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
Show 7 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
New analysis added
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court rule in Chatrie?
- The Court ruled that police conducted a Fourth Amendment search by obtaining Chatrie’s Google Location History through a geofence warrant.
- Who won Chatrie?
- Chatrie won the question whether obtaining his detailed location data was a search. The Court did not decide whether the warrant process met all Fourth Amendment requirements.
- What does Chatrie mean for police and Google?
- Police must treat requests for detailed Google location history as Fourth Amendment searches. Google may receive requests that must be evaluated under those constitutional limits.
- What happens next in Chatrie?
- The Fourth Circuit will reconsider whether the warrant’s multi-step process satisfied Fourth Amendment requirements.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.