Supreme Court holds that access to Chatrie location data was a search
Supreme Court of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United States, in the majority opinion delivered by Justice Elena Kagan
The Supreme Court held that obtaining Chatrie's Google Location History was a Fourth Amendment search.
“the police conducted a search when they gained access to Location History data.”
Original text
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.
Original text
About this source
The government argues that the data was voluntarily shared and alternatively defends the warrant's reasonableness. These are its litigation arguments.
Before the quotation
The Court considered whether police conducted a search when they obtained location data through a geofence warrant.
After the quotation
The majority left for the Court of Appeals whether the warrant met probable-cause and particularity requirements at each step.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The case centers on the government's position that obtaining Location History was not a search. The majority rejects that position by holding that a search occurred.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- United States Department of Justice
More from this case
Read the full caseNeil Gorsuch agrees government access to Location History was a search
“government’s examination of Okello Chatrie’s Location History data amounted to a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.”Read statement
Ketanji Brown Jackson says the geofence search violated the Fourth Amendment
“I write separately because I would have gone further to explain that this search violated the Fourth Amendment.”Read statement
Alito 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
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
- Supreme Court holds that access to Chatrie location data was a search
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/5842-the-supreme-court-held-that-obtaining-chatrie-s
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Supreme Court holds that access to Chatrie location data was a search". First published: 2026-10-16. Last updated: 2026-10-16. https://disputeindex.com/events/5842-the-supreme-court-held-that-obtaining-chatrie-s