When police get your loved one's cell-phone location history from a tech company, that is a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled this on June 29, 2026, in Chatrie v. United States.
The case began with a 2019 bank robbery. Investigators had no suspect, so they got a "geofence" warrant. It required Google to hand over data on phones near the credit union around the time of the crime. That data led to Okello Chatrie. A Fourth Circuit panel said no search happened because he had shared his location data with Google.
The Supreme Court disagreed. It said people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cell-phone location information. It refused to treat everyday phone use as giving up that privacy. Getting the data was a search.
The Court did not decide whether this warrant was valid. It sent the case back for the Fourth Circuit to decide whether each step of the warrant met the Fourth Amendment's probable cause and particularity rules.
What this means for your family
If location data from a phone or app is part of the case against your loved one, the defense can ask key questions:
How was the data obtained?
Was there a warrant?
Was the warrant specific enough?
Motions to suppress have deadlines, so these issues need attention early.
Your next step
Ask the defense to look closely at any phone, app, or location evidence in the discovery. Book a consultation to talk about your case.
Source: Chatrie v. United States, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 25-112, 609 U.S. 605 (2026). Read the source
More court decisions
Abouammo v. United States: Where a Federal Falsification Case Can Be Tried
A unanimous Court held that an 18 U.S.C. § 1519 falsification charge must be tried where the falsification happened, not where the investigation was.
Kousisis v. United States: Wire Fraud Doesn't Require Intent to Cause a Money Loss
A person who tricks someone into a deal with material lies can be convicted of federal fraud even without intending economic loss.