609/2
U.S.2026Background
- Police used a Google geofence warrant to obtain Location History data for phones near a Virginia credit union robbery, ultimately identifying Okello Chatrie. 1
- The district court found the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment but denied suppression under the good-faith exception. 2
- A divided Fourth Circuit initially held no search occurred, then the en banc court affirmed evenly divided. 3
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari only on whether acquiring Chatrie's location data violated the Fourth Amendment. 4
- The Court held that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in cell-phone location information, including Google Location History. 5
- The Court vacated and remanded without deciding whether the multi-step warrant satisfied probable cause and particularity. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is acquiring Google Location History a Fourth Amendment search? 7 | Chatrie said police intruded on private location information. | United States said no search because data was shared with Google. | Yes; accessing Location History is a search. 8 |
| Does short duration avoid Fourth Amendment protection? 9 | Even two hours can reveal private movements. | Two hours is too brief to be a search. | No; short-term location monitoring can still be a search. 10 |
| Does the third-party doctrine bar the claim? 11 | Google disclosure did not eliminate privacy in the data. | Users voluntarily share Location History with Google. | No; Carpenter's third-party doctrine limits apply. 12 |
| Was the geofence warrant reasonable? 13 | The multi-step warrant lacked probable cause and particularity. | The warrant was sufficiently particular and supported by probable cause. | Unresolved; remanded to the Fourth Circuit. 14 |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2018) (historical CSLI search; reasonable expectation of privacy in physical movements 15)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (U.S. 2012) (short-term monitoring can reveal intimate details; GPS tracking search analysis 16)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (U.S. 2001) (where the Fourth Amendment applies, quantity of information does not matter 17)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (U.S. 1983) (beeper tracking on public roads; relied on and distinguished 18)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (U.S. 1976) (third-party doctrine for bank records; distinguished from Location History 19)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (U.S. 1979) (third-party doctrine for dialed numbers; distinguished from Location History 20)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (U.S. 2014) (smartphones contain vast personal information; cited on modern cell-phone use 21)
- United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (U.S. 1948) (Fourth Amendment bars arbitrary police surveillance and retroactive justification 22)
- United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (U.S. 1984) (location monitoring implicating a home can be a search; discussed as a limiting analogue 23)
- Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (U.S. 1948) (warrants should come from a neutral and detached magistrate 24)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule 25)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, and reasonable expectations of privacy 26)