Alito says Chatrie "assumed the risk" by giving Google his location information
Samuel AlitoAssociate justice of the Supreme Court, dissenting
Alito argued that sharing location information for Google's own use meant assuming the risk of police disclosure.
“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.”
Original text
Where this statement fits
Should police access to Google Location History count as a Fourth Amendment search?
In Chatrie v. United States, the government argued that voluntarily sharing Google Location History meant police acquisition of the limited data did not trigger Fourth Amendment protection. The ACLU and NetChoice opposed that position. On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court held that acquisition was a search. Samuel Alito dissented, distinguishing the short, optional location record from prolonged surveillance. The ruling left the warrant's reasonableness for further proceedings and did not ban every geofence warrant or decide suppression of the evidence.
Source and context
Original text
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.
Before the quotation
Alito compares Location History to records covered by earlier third-party doctrine decisions.
After the quotation
His dissent distinguishes this limited, optional service from prolonged cell-site tracking and also raises good-faith and advisory-opinion objections.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
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.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseDOJ argues Location History access was not a search
United States Department of Justice
“As a threshold matter, petitioner lacks a cognizable Fourth Amendment interest in the information that Google provided to law enforcement.”Read statement
NetChoice argues entrusted data retains protection
NetChoice
“individuals do not lose their privacy interests just because the data is temporarily stored, with the user’s permission, with an online service provider.”Read statement
ACLU rejects the government's no-search position
American Civil Liberties Union
“Letting that power go unchecked is inconsistent with basic freedoms in a democratic society.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Alito says Chatrie "assumed the risk" by giving Google his location information
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/5609-alito-argued-that-sharing-location-information-for-google
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Alito says Chatrie "assumed the risk" by giving Google his location information". First published: 2026-10-12. Last updated: 2026-10-12. https://disputeindex.com/events/5609-alito-argued-that-sharing-location-information-for-google