U.S. Supreme Court Rules Geofence Location Collection Is a Fourth Amendment Search
Summary
In a 6-3 ruling in Chatrie v. United States, the Supreme Court held that government collection of phone location data through a geofence warrant is a Fourth Amendment search, but did not decide whether the warrant in Chatrie’s case was valid.
Key points
- The 6-3 ruling held that government collection of phone location data, including data held by a third party, can constitute a Fourth Amendment search.
- The case involved police seeking Google location data through a geofence warrant during an investigation of a bank robbery.
- The Court did not decide whether the specific warrant used in Chatrie’s case was valid.
- The majority found cell phone location records substantially similar to the cell-site location information addressed in Carpenter v. United States.
- Justice Gorsuch separately argued that Chatrie’s Location History data qualified as personal property.
- Dissenting justices warned the decision could have broader effects on Fourth Amendment doctrine. Claims about the ruling’s practical implications were attributed to legal commentators and privacy advocates.
Article Details
- Event Type
- U.S. Supreme Court ruling that geofence-based collection of phone location data constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
- Impact
- The 6-3 ruling recognizes a reasonable expectation of privacy in cell phone location records held by third-party companies and says police intrude on that protected interest when they demand the information. The Court did not decide whether the specific warrant in Chatrie’s case was valid. The decision may affect future government searches of sensitive location data and other data held by companies.
People
Andrew FergusonLaw professor who commented on the ruling’s significance for Fourth Amendment privacy and law enforcement access to data.Brett KavanaughJoined the majority opinion recognizing Fourth Amendment protection for cell phone location records.Brett Max KaufmanACLU senior counsel who helped write a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Chatrie and commented on the ruling.Elena KaganWrote the majority opinion, which held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about their cell phone location.John RobertsJoined the majority opinion recognizing Fourth Amendment protection for cell phone location records.Ketanji Brown JacksonJoined the majority opinion recognizing Fourth Amendment protection for cell phone location records.Neil GorsuchWrote a concurring opinion arguing that Chatrie’s Location History data qualified as his personal property.Okello ChatrieChallenged police collection of Google location data under a geofence warrant in connection with his bank robbery conviction.Samuel AlitoWrote the dissent, warning that the majority’s reasoning could have broad implications for Fourth Amendment doctrine.Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority opinion recognizing Fourth Amendment protection for cell phone location records.
Vendors
Products
Countries
Industries
Law enforcementuse of data threatens personal freedom, said the ruling was big even if it will still be easy for law enforcement to obtain warrants in other ways.TechnologyIn the new opinion, Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the majority, used sweeping language about how the Fourth Amendment might apply as technology advances.