On June 29, 2026, the US Supreme Court decided Chatrie v. United States, No. 25-112, holding that police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired a cell-phone user's Location History data from Google, because "[a]n individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone's location." Accordingly, the police "intrude[d] on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand[ed] the information — even though for only a limited time, and from a third-party tech company."
In May 2019, a man robbed a credit union in Virginia. Afterwards, local police sought and obtained a "geofence warrant" directed to Google. A geofence warrant "seeks information about the cell phones located in the vicinity of a crime scene at around the time the crime was committed." The police used the geofence warrant to require Google to produce Google users' "Location History" data — which "records the location of a user's cell phone every two minutes or so" — from within a 150-meter radius of the credit union. The police then engaged in a three-step process outlined in the warrant to narrow down their investigation to a list of possible suspects. Following that process, a federal grand jury charged Chatrie with robbery and related firearms offenses, and Chatrie moved to suppress the information that the police acquired from Google. The district court denied Chatrie's motion, and the Fourth Circuit ultimately held that Chatrie "did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in two hours' worth of Location History data voluntarily exposed to Google."
The Supreme Court reversed. The Court held that Chatrie had "a legitimate expectation of privacy in the information Location History collects about his cell phone's . . . movements," and the police "invad[ed] that expectation" when they acquired this information. The Court relied upon its previous decision in Carpenter v. United States, where the court held that accessing cell-site location information — i.e., "'time-stamped record[s]' generated each time a cell phone connects to a cell site" — constituted a Fourth Amendment search because "'[a]llowing government access to cell-site records contravenes expectations of privacy.'" There, the Court stressed that cell-site location information provided a full "record of the holder's whereabouts" and "an intimate window into the person's life" because people "compulsively carry" their cell phones "all the time."
The Court observed that the factors it relied upon in Carpenter "applie[d] as well or better" in Chatrie. First, "Location History provides an even more fine-tuned picture of a person's movements than" cell-site location information. Second, Location History records implicate even greater privacy interests because they are "more the individual's own," resembling "other private materials" like emails, documents, photographs, or calendars" that a user "reasonably views as his own" even if they are "stored on Google's servers." The Court noted that Location History data provides "a personal journal of a user's movements," such as restaurants where they ate or places they visited on vacation.
The Supreme Court rejected the Government's arguments to the contrary. First, the Government argued there was no reasonable expectation of privacy because the police "access[ed] only a short amount of cell-phone location information." The Court stated there is no "Fourth Amendment grace period" for time-limited searches from "an all-encompassing database": "The sweep of the official invasion is not made less because the government, with the benefit of hindsight, can pinpoint exactly which few hours of movements it wants to review." Second, the Government argued that by authorizing Google to collect, retain, and use his location information, Chatrie lost his legitimate expectation of privacy in the information. The Court rejected this "third-party doctrine" argument, reasoning that Location History data is "not truly shared" in the "normal sense of wanting a third party to see or use it." A Google user "reasonably understands" such information as "his own" — "it is the automatic price of conventional cell-phone usage."
The Court concluded by noting that its opinion did not address the reasonableness of the search or whether an exception to the exclusionary rule might still permit the Location History data in question to be admitted. The Court left these questions for the Court of Appeals to address in the first instance on remand.
Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Jackson joined. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion, which Justice Sotomayor joined. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, which Justices Thomas and Barrett joined in part. Justice Barrett filed a dissenting opinion.
