Police cellphone tracking
Simpson v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Jaquate Simpson asked the Supreme Court to review the Fourth Circuit’s ruling that law enforcement’s access to real-time cell-site-simulator and GPS location-tracking information from a cellular carrier was not a Fourth Amendment search, but was like a basic pen register.
- Who it affects
- The denial ends Simpson’s request for Supreme Court review; it does not decide whether the Fourth Circuit’s ruling was constitutionally correct.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court refused to hear the case (denied review), so it did not decide whether the ruling violated the Fourth Amendment.
The dispute concerned whether real-time phone-location tracking falls within the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable government searches.
Question presented
Did the Fourth Circuit directly violate Carpenter v. United States. 585 U.S. 296 (2018), and now Chatrie v. United States. No. 25-112 (June 29, 2026) (slip op.), by hol ding that law enforcement ’ s access to real-time cell-site simulator and GPS location-tracking surveillance from a cellular phone carrier was not a Fourth Amendment search, but instead merely the equivalent of a basic pen register?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
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.