Cybersecurity Policy Report, Location History Data Access Constitutes Search, Supreme Court Rules, (Jun 29, 2026)

By Paul Kirby

On a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court today ruled that police conducted a “search” when they gained access to location history data of a robbery suspect, and it remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Richmond) to consider “whether, given the [geofence] warrant issued, the search here was reasonable, meaning that each of its steps was properly described with particularity and found to be supported by probable cause.”

“An individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone’s location, and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information—even though for only a limited time, and from a third-party tech company,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion in Okello Chatrie v. U.S., No. 25-112 (U.S. June 29, 2026).

“In line with our grant of certiorari, we do not address whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule still allows the admission of the Location History data in this case,” Justice Kagan wrote in a footnote. “That question remains for the Fourth Circuit to consider anew, gleaning anything it thinks relevant from our decision on the substantive Fourth Amendment issues.

The case deals with a geofence warrant served on Google LLC that directed the tech company to scan more than 500 million users of Google’s location history capability. It led to the arrest and conviction of Okello Chatrie, a robbery suspect.

The petitioner’s attorney argued during the oral argument that the execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, saying that the government should have obtained more than one warrant given the three steps to the process involving Google (CPR, April 28).

In response to a warrant, Google returned a list of all devices that were within 150 meters of the crime scene within an hour of the robbery. Law enforcement officers then sought and obtained, without another warrant, additional information on certain devices for a two-hour period. After that, law enforcement authorities asked, without a warrant, for de-anonymized subscriber information for three devices, leading them to Mr. Chatrie.

The petitioner’s attorney cited a 5-4 2018 Supreme Court ruling in Carpenter v. United States that a warrant based on probable cause was generally needed before law enforcement agents could obtain historical cell-site location information (CSLI) (CPR, June 29, 2018).

The Office of the Solicitor General told the court in a brief in the case that a decision on the Fourth Amendment “would not in itself have any practical effect on the outcome of this case, because a majority of Fourth Circuit judges, as well as the district court, already correctly determined that under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained pursuant to the geofence warrant should not be suppressed even if the warrant is unconstitutional.”

“In his famed and vindicated dissent, Justice [Louis] Brandeis explained why a wiretap was a search, subject to Fourth Amendment requirements,” Justice Kagan noted.

“Far more recently, this Court in Carpenter invoked Justice Brandeis’s opinion in explaining why law enforcement officials could not have ‘unrestricted access to a wireless carrier’s database of physical location information,’” she said.

Justice Kagan was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion and was joined by Justice Sotomayor. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Samuel Alito Jr. filed a dissenting opinion joined by Clarence Thomas as to Part I and Amy Coney Barrett as to parts II-B, II-C-1, and II-C-2. Justice Barrett also filed a dissenting opinion.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote, “I might have hoped that the Court would have pursued a more traditional approach to the Fourth Amendment today. But look carefully and you will see hints of it at work even in the Court’s opinion. Why is the Court so protective of Location History data, email, and electronically stored photos and calendars? Because, it turns out, ‘a user reasonably understands’ all those things ‘as his own.’ … Put another way, entrusting your effects to a third party for certain agreed purposes doesn’t mean they are no longer yours.”

In his dissenting opinion, Judge Alito wrote, “Although today’s decision will send seismic waves through our Fourth Amendment doctrine, not one iota of the majority opinion will affect the outcome of this case. The Court knows this and does not claim otherwise. Indeed, by refusing to review the one question that could have at least theoretically given Chatrie some hope of relief, the Court carefully set the stage for its planned performance: striking a pose as a great champion of privacy in the digital age. I cannot support this irresponsible escapade.”

“The Court should not have granted certiorari in this case, and under any faithful application of our precedents, it should now either dismiss this petition or affirm the decision below based on the ‘good-faith exception’ to the exclusionary rule,” Justice Alito added.

In her dissent, Justice Barrett wrote, “I have no quarrel with Carpenter v. United States, 585 U. S. 296 (2018), or with the Court’s decision to grant certiorari in this case. But I agree with JUSTICE ALITO that under our Fourth Amendment precedent, including Carpenter, Chatrie had no reasonable expectation of privacy in data about his public movements that he voluntarily disclosed to Google. I therefore respectfully dissent.”

“The court’s decision today reflects what EPIC has long known: individuals have significant privacy interests in their location information and the Fourth Amendment requires that law enforcement must provide a sufficiently particularized warrant to access such sensitive data,” said Sara Geoghegan, a senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center and director of its Consumer Privacy Program. “Law enforcement and individuals need clear rules that govern location information, and policymakers should follow the Court’s direction and establish clear protections and guardrails for location data access in order to best protect individual liberties.”

Computer & Communications Industry Association President & Chief Executive Officer Matt Schruers said, “The Fourth Amendment fully protects people’s rights to privacy from government intrusion. We are encouraged to see the Court recognize that privacy interests persist regardless of the technology involved, and that law enforcement must seek judicial authorization to obtain Americans’ geolocation information.”

News: FederalLegislation LitigationEnforcement DataPrivacy