Should police access to Google Location History count as a Fourth Amendment search?
The government argued that voluntary sharing removed a privacy interest in Google Location History. The Supreme Court treated police access as a search, while dissents and the warrant's legality raise separate questions.
Claim in dispute
Chatrie lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in short-term location information he voluntarily shared with Google.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
Chatrie concerns a Google geofence warrant used to identify people near a Virginia credit-union robbery in 2019. Police first obtained anonymous location data, then sought more data for a subset of devices and identifying information for three users. The constitutional dispute reached the Supreme Court after Chatrie's July 2025 petition (opens in a new tab).
The United States' March 25 merits brief (opens in a new tab) argues that voluntary disclosure of short-term public movements left no reasonable expectation of privacy. Alternatively, it argues that the warrant was reasonable. The ACLU and its partners (opens in a new tab) oppose that approach and seek broader restrictions. NetChoice (opens in a new tab) argues that users retain interests in data they entrust to service providers.
The June 29 opinion (opens in a new tab) holds that police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Location History. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Elena Kagan's majority opinion. Neil Gorsuch concurred in the judgment on a property-based rationale. Alito dissented, arguing that the limited, voluntarily shared data did not receive the protection applied to prolonged location tracking. Clarence Thomas joined Part I of Alito's dissent. Amy Coney Barrett joined Parts II-B, II-C-1 and II-C-2 and filed her own dissent.
A search is not automatically an unreasonable search. The majority remanded questions about probable cause and particularity and did not order evidence suppressed or overturn Chatrie's conviction. The historical data system also matters: the Court records Google's representation that its move to on-device storage left it unable to answer Location History geofence warrants. That does not establish that police cannot seek location evidence by other means.
The fixed dispute is the government's no-search treatment of Location History, which the Supreme Court rejected. Whether the user voluntarily surrendered privacy is part of the disagreement, not an assumption of this case.
People in this case
Samuel AlitoDirectly involved
Timeline
4 timeline entries on this page. Dates: January 16, 2026 to June 29, 2026
January 2026
1 event
Supreme Court agrees to hear the search question
The Court grants Chatrie's petition limited to the first question presented.
[01]Supreme Court docket for Chatrie v. United States
The docket records filing, argument and judgment dates and identifies the joins in the separate opinions.
Supreme Court docket for Chatrie v. United StatesProceedings: July 28, 2025 through June 29, 2026.
45 days between recorded events
March 2026
2 events
ACLU partners and NetChoice file privacy briefs
Reaction
The groups argue that access to Location History should receive constitutional protection, using different arguments and requested remedies.
[02]ACLU and partner organizations' Chatrie amicus brief
The ACLU, ACLU of Virginia, EFF and Georgetown's privacy center jointly argue for constitutional limits on geofence searches. Their request to invalidate such warrants is broader than the Court's eventual holding.
ACLU and partner organizations' Chatrie amicus briefIntroduction and Summary of Argument, pages 1-4.[03]NetChoice's Chatrie amicus brief
NetChoice supports privacy protection for users' location data and proposes property and bailment principles as an independent basis.
NetChoice's Chatrie amicus briefSummary of Argument, pages 1-5; property-based argument, pages 5-13.Government defends location-data acquisition
Reaction
The United States submits its merits brief arguing no protected privacy interest and, alternatively, a reasonable warrant-based search.
[04]United States merits brief in Chatrie
The government argues that the data was voluntarily shared and alternatively defends the warrant's reasonableness. These are its litigation arguments.
United States merits brief in ChatrieSummary of Argument, pages 12-14; no-search argument, pages 15-35.
96 days between recorded events
June 2026
1 event
Supreme Court treats Location History access as a search
Six justices support the judgment. Five join Kagan's reasoning, with Gorsuch concurring in the judgment. The Court remands reasonableness questions and does not order evidence suppressed.
[05]Chatrie v. United States: Supreme Court opinion and separate opinions
The judgment treats acquisition of Location History as a search and remands questions about the warrant's reasonableness. It does not invalidate every geofence warrant or order suppression of the evidence.
Chatrie v. United States: Supreme Court opinion and separate opinionsMajority pages 2, 4, 24-33; Alito dissent pages 12-17; Gorsuch concurrence and Barrett dissent.[01]Supreme Court docket for Chatrie v. United States
The docket records filing, argument and judgment dates and identifies the joins in the separate opinions.
Supreme Court docket for Chatrie v. United StatesProceedings: July 28, 2025 through June 29, 2026.
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
Chatrie lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in short-term location information he voluntarily shared with Google.
United States Department of Justice
Sources (1)
- United States merits brief in ChatrieSummary of Argument, pages 12-14; no-search argument, pages 15-35.
Disputed claim
Acquiring Google location data through geofence warrants is a Fourth Amendment search even when the data covers a short period.
American Civil Liberties Union
Sources (1)
- ACLU and partner organizations' Chatrie amicus briefIntroduction and Summary of Argument, pages 1-4.
Arguments
Documented position
ACLU partners and NetChoice
Entrusting data does not surrender all privacy
The ACLU emphasizes the revealing reach of location searches. NetChoice argues that users retain property and privacy interests when they entrust their data to a provider.
Limit of this argument
Their arguments differ, and constitutional search protection does not make every warrant invalid.
Read sources
Sources
- ACLU and partner organizations' Chatrie amicus briefIntroduction and Summary of Argument, pages 1-4.
- NetChoice's Chatrie amicus briefSummary of Argument, pages 1-5; property-based argument, pages 5-13.
Documented position
United States merits brief and Alito's dissent
A limited record voluntarily given to Google
The government and Alito argue that short-term public movements from an optional service differ from unavoidable, prolonged cell-site records. The government separately defends the judicial warrant.
Limit of this argument
The majority rejected the no-search theory. Warrant reasonableness and suppression are separate questions.
Read sources
Sources
- United States merits brief in ChatrieSummary of Argument, pages 12-14; no-search argument, pages 15-35.
- Chatrie v. United States: Supreme Court opinion and separate opinionsMajority pages 2, 4, 24-33; Alito dissent pages 12-17; Gorsuch concurrence and Barrett dissent.
Response record
Responses
Latest recorded positions: 4. Dates: March 2, 2026 to June 29, 2026
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
4 responses on this page
Samuel AlitoAssociate justice of the Supreme Court, dissentingDirectly involved"So, by giving Google his location information for its own use, Chatrie assumed the risk that Google might disclose location information to others, including the police."
Defended or excusedCase context: Should police access to Google Location History count as a Fourth Amendment search?
Read more
Alito argued that sharing location information for Google's own use meant assuming the risk of police disclosure.
Before the statement
Alito compares Location History to records covered by earlier third-party doctrine decisions.
After the statement
His dissent distinguishes this limited, optional service from prolonged cell-site tracking and also raises good-faith and advisory-opinion objections.
Chatrie v. United States: Supreme Court opinion and separate opinionsMajority pages 2, 4, 24-33; Alito dissent pages 12-17; Gorsuch concurrence and Barrett dissent.Why this label?
The case examines the no-search treatment of voluntarily shared Location History. Alito defends that treatment. His procedural objections do not erase his substantive position on privacy.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
United States Department of JusticeUnited States government, represented by the Department of JusticeDirectly involved"As a threshold matter, petitioner lacks a cognizable Fourth Amendment interest in the information that Google provided to law enforcement."
Defended or excusedCase context: Should police access to Google Location History count as a Fourth Amendment search?
Read more
The government argued that voluntarily shared Location History carried no protected privacy interest.
Before the statement
The brief describes the warrant as a limited request for location information near the robbery.
After the statement
It also argues that any search was reasonable because police obtained and followed a judicial warrant.
United States merits brief in ChatrieSummary of Argument, pages 12-14; no-search argument, pages 15-35.Why this label?
The case examines treating Google Location History as outside Fourth Amendment search protection. The government defends that treatment, alleging voluntary sharing and citing the limited period involved.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
American Civil Liberties UnionCivil-liberties organization, in a joint amicus briefDirectly involved"Letting that power go unchecked is inconsistent with basic freedoms in a democratic society."
CondemnedCase context: Should police access to Google Location History count as a Fourth Amendment search?
Read more
The ACLU and its partners rejected unchecked geofence access and sought constitutional restrictions.
Before the statement
The brief argues that police can reconstruct people's locations in ways ordinary observation could not.
After the statement
The signers seek a ruling against geofence warrants as general warrants, or safeguards if the Court disagrees.
ACLU and partner organizations' Chatrie amicus briefIntroduction and Summary of Argument, pages 1-4.Why this label?
The case examines exempting location-data acquisition from constitutional search protection. The joint brief criticizes unchecked access and argues that the Fourth Amendment applies. Its broader requested remedy was not the Court's final holding.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
NetChoiceTrade association, in a Supreme Court amicus briefDirectly involved "individuals do not lose their privacy interests just because the data is temporarily stored, with the user’s permission, with an online service provider."
CondemnedCase context: Should police access to Google Location History count as a Fourth Amendment search?
Read more
NetChoice argued that entrusting location data to a provider does not remove property or privacy interests.
Before the statement
NetChoice supports treating acquisition as a search under existing privacy doctrine.
After the statement
The brief proposes property and bailment principles as an independent basis for protection. The Court later held that acquisition was a search, without resolving the warrant's reasonableness.
NetChoice's Chatrie amicus briefSummary of Argument, pages 1-5; property-based argument, pages 5-13.Why this label?
The case examines the government's no-search treatment of Location History. NetChoice's brief supports the petitioner and substantively rejects that treatment, arguing that users retain constitutional interests in entrusted data. Its property argument supplies a reason for that rejection, not merely a change of terminology.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(5)
Original text
Chatrie v. United States: Supreme Court opinion and separate opinions
Relevant passage: Majority pages 2, 4, 24-33; Alito dissent pages 12-17; Gorsuch concurrence and Barrett dissent.
About this source
The judgment treats acquisition of Location History as a search and remands questions about the warrant's reasonableness. It does not invalidate every geofence warrant or order suppression of the evidence.
- Author
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Supreme Court docket for Chatrie v. United States
Relevant passage: Proceedings: July 28, 2025 through June 29, 2026.
About this source
The docket records filing, argument and judgment dates and identifies the joins in the separate opinions.
- Author
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Accessed
Original text
NetChoice's Chatrie amicus brief
Relevant passage: Summary of Argument, pages 1-5; property-based argument, pages 5-13.
About this source
NetChoice supports privacy protection for users' location data and proposes property and bailment principles as an independent basis.
- Author
- NetChoice
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
ACLU and partner organizations' Chatrie amicus brief
Relevant passage: Introduction and Summary of Argument, pages 1-4.
About this source
The ACLU, ACLU of Virginia, EFF and Georgetown's privacy center jointly argue for constitutional limits on geofence searches. Their request to invalidate such warrants is broader than the Court's eventual holding.
- Author
- American Civil Liberties Union and co-signing organizations
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
United States merits brief in Chatrie
Relevant passage: Summary of Argument, pages 12-14; no-search argument, pages 15-35.
About this source
The government argues that the data was voluntarily shared and alternatively defends the warrant's reasonableness. These are its litigation arguments.
- Author
- United States Department of Justice
- Published
- Accessed
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Should police access to Google Location History count as a Fourth Amendment search?
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/chatrie-google-location-history-fourth-amendment-privacy
The Dispute Index. "Should police access to Google Location History count as a Fourth Amendment search?". First published: 2026-10-12. Last updated: 2026-10-12. https://disputeindex.com/cases/chatrie-google-location-history-fourth-amendment-privacy