ACLU rejects the government's no-search position
American Civil Liberties UnionCivil-liberties organization, in a joint amicus brief
The ACLU and its partners rejected unchecked geofence access and sought constitutional restrictions.
“Letting that power go unchecked is inconsistent with basic freedoms in a democratic society.”
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 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.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The brief argues that police can reconstruct people's locations in ways ordinary observation could not.
After the quotation
The signers seek a ruling against geofence warrants as general warrants, or safeguards if the Court disagrees.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
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.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseAlito says Chatrie "assumed the risk" by giving Google his location information
“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.”Read statement
DOJ 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
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
- ACLU rejects the government's no-search position
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/5610-the-aclu-and-its-partners-rejected-unchecked-geofence
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "ACLU rejects the government's no-search position". First published: 2026-10-12. Last updated: 2026-10-12. https://disputeindex.com/events/5610-the-aclu-and-its-partners-rejected-unchecked-geofence