The Fourth Amendment Moves to the Cloud: Chatrie v. United States and the Future of Digital Privacy

The Fourth Amendment Moves to the Cloud: Chatrie v. United States and the Future of Digital Privacy

Chatrie v. United States and the Future of Digital Privacy">

The Fourth Amendment Moves to the Cloud: Chatrie v. United States and the Future of Digital Privacy

July 2, 2026

Client Alert

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW:

Law enforcement accessing cell-phone location data is a Fourth Amendment search. By a 6–3 vote, the Court held that police intrude on a user’s reasonable expectation of records about the user’s cell phone location through a geofence warrant, notwithstanding the third-party doctrine.

Protection does not depend on time limits or the amount of data. The Court refused to grant the government a “grace period” for brief retrievals (here, two hours), holding that a search is a search, regardless of the quantity or sensitivity of what it turns up.

The Court demurs on probable cause and particularity. Having concluded that accessing Location History data was a search, the Court passed on the questions of whether the geofence warrant met the Fourth Amendment requirements of probable cause and particularity, leaving for another day how narrowly a geofence warrant must be drawn to pass constitutional muster.

The Court divides over how far the Fourth Amendment reaches beyond location data. Its logic—protecting data a user “reasonably views as his own”—could have broad application, extending to other cloud-stored information. The separate opinions reveal a deepening split over the governing Fourth Amendment framework for digital evidence.

Authors

Whitney Russell

George P. Varghese

Michael H. Baer

Samson F. Cohen

Related Solutions

Appellate and Supreme Court Litigation

White Collar Defense and Investigations

Combining our trial and appellate strengths allows us to shape litigation strategy from the outset to maximize the likelihood of ultimate success.

Uncompromising defense of corporations and individuals in high-profile and complex litigation and investigations.

Share and Download

Download

On June 29, 2026, in Chatrie v. United States, the Supreme Court held in a 6–3 decision that police conduct a Fourth Amendment “search” when they obtain a person’s cell phone location data through a geofence warrant, notwithstanding the third-party doctrine.1 Writing for five of the justices in the majority, Justice Elena Kagan concluded that “[a]n individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone’s location” and that the 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.”2

This Client Alert (1) summarizes the majority opinion and the separate writings, including the division on the Court over how to analyze Fourth Amendment claims; (2) explains why the decision is a direct extension of Carpenter v. United States and Riley v. California; and (3) highlights the forward-looking questions the decision raises—including what other digital information is now likely protected, how categorical that protection is and whether the warrant at issue will ultimately be upheld. For background on geofence warrants and the lower-court decisions that preceded this one, see our prior Client Alert “The Impact and Future of the Fifth Circuit’s New Hard-Line Stance on Geofence Warrants.”

The Court’s Decision

A geofence warrant is a tool that lets investigators work backward from a crime scene to a suspect. Rather than start with a known suspect, the police draw “a ‘geofence’—a virtual perimeter—around the crime scene” and obtain a warrant compelling a technology company to turn over data about all the cell phones present in that area over a set period of time.3 Because these warrants invert the usual sequence of an investigation, they are often called “reverse warrants.”4

The data at issue in Chatrie was Google’s “Location History,” which the Court described as “a time-stamped record of every place a cell phone has been.”5 When enabled, Location History logs a phone’s position “[e]very two minutes or so,” drawing on Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cell tower sites, GPS, and IP address information to fix the phone’s location to within roughly 20 meters and even to estimate which floor of a building the phone is on.6 The case arose from the 2019 robbery of a credit union in Midlothian, Virginia. Investigators obtained a geofence warrant directed to Google for a 150-meter radius around the credit union, and through a complex three-step process described in the warrant application, narrowed the universe of users and ultimately identified suspects.

At step one of that process, Google produced...