{"id":52473,"date":"2026-06-30T15:49:03","date_gmt":"2026-06-30T19:49:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=52473"},"modified":"2026-06-30T15:49:03","modified_gmt":"2026-06-30T19:49:03","slug":"chatrie-v-united-states","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2026\/06\/30\/chatrie-v-united-states\/","title":{"rendered":"Chatrie v. United States"},"content":{"rendered":"

Amy Howe<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled<\/a> that when law enforcement officials used a “geofence warrant” – a warrant that instructed Google to provide location data for cellphone users who were near a particular place during a specific time period – to obtain evidence used to convict a Virginia man of a 2019 bank robbery, they conducted a “search” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. By a vote of 6-3, the justices sent Okello Chatrie’s case back to the lower court for it to consider whether, as the Fourth Amendment requires, the search was “reasonable.”<\/p>

Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan emphasized that “[a]n 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.”<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

For purposes of whether the government conducted a search, Kagan said, it does not matter that law enforcement officials “access[ed] only a short amount of cell-phone location information.” […] Nor does it matter, Kagan continued, that Chatrie gave Google permission to collect and use the location data.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n