Supreme Court Update: Google Location History and the Fourth Amendment

The United States Supreme Court just issued an important Fourth Amendment opinion dealing with Google Location History and geofence warrants.

The case is Chatrie v. United States. The issue was whether police conduct a “search” under the Fourth Amendment when they get a person’s Google Location History data from Google. The Supreme Court said yes.

That may sound obvious to most people. Your phone knows a lot about you. It knows where you sleep, where you work, where you go to church, where you take your kids, where you go to the doctor, and where you were when something happened. The important part of this opinion is that the Supreme Court recognized that this kind of information deserves constitutional protection.

What happened in the case?

Police were investigating a credit union robbery in Virginia. They did not know who the suspect was. Instead of asking for information about a known person, police used a geofence warrant.

A geofence warrant works backward. Police pick a location and a time period, then ask a company like Google to identify devices that were in that area.

In this case, officers asked Google for Location History data for devices within about 150 meters of the credit union around the time of the robbery. Google first gave police anonymized data. Officers then narrowed the list and asked for more information. Eventually, they received identifying information that led them to Okello Chatrie.

Chatrie moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.

What did the Supreme Court decide?

The Supreme Court held that getting Chatrie’s Google Location History data was a Fourth Amendment search.

That does not automatically mean the evidence gets thrown out. A search can still be valid if it is reasonable and supported by a proper warrant. But the Government cannot avoid the Fourth Amendment by saying, “We got the information from Google, not directly from the person.”

That is the big takeaway.

The Court also rejected the idea that the data was not private just because it covered a short period of time. The Government argued that this case involved only about two hours of location data. The Supreme Court was not persuaded. The Court recognized that even a short window of precise location data can reveal deeply private information.

Why Google Location History matters

Google Location History is not the same as someone seeing your car drive down the street.

This data can be extremely detailed. It can use GPS, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cell towers, and IP address information. It can place a device within a small area. In some situations, it may even show which floor of a building a person was on.

That kind of information can tell the Government far more than most people would expect.

The Supreme Court’s decision builds on an earlier case called Carpenter v. United States, where the Court held that the Government usually needs a warrant to obtain historical cell-site location information. Chatrie takes that same basic principle and applies it to Google Location History.

What the Court did not decide

The Court did not decide whether this particular warrant was good enough.

That part of the case goes back to the lower court. The next questions are whether the warrant was supported by probable cause, whether it was specific enough, and whether it gave police too much discretion after the warrant was issued.

Those are not small details.

With digital warrants, the wording matters. The process matters. The scope matters. A warrant that sweeps in information about innocent people, or lets officers decide later who they want to investigate more deeply, can create serious Fourth Amendment problems.

Why this matters in criminal cases

This decision matters because more criminal cases now involve digital evidence. Cell phones, apps, location data, Google accounts, vehicle data, and cloud-stored records are part of modern investigations.

For the defense, the question is not simply whether police had a warrant. The real questions are:

• Did the warrant establish probable cause?
• Was the warrant specific enough?
• Did it limit what police could search and seize?
• Did police stay within the scope of the warrant?
• Did the warrant expose private information about people who were not suspects?
• Did officers need to go back to a judge before getting more detailed information?

Those issues can make a major difference in a criminal case.

Bottom line

The Supreme Court’s opinion in Chatrie v. United States is an important reminder that constitutional rights still apply in the digital world.

Police cannot avoid the Fourth Amendment just because the information is stored by Google. They also cannot assume that precise location data loses protection just because it covers a short period of time.

Location evidence can be powerful. But like any other evidence, it must be obtained legally.

At Zendeh Del & Associates, PLLC, we review search warrants, digital evidence, and constitutional issues in criminal cases throughout Galveston County and the surrounding areas. If you or a loved one has been charged with a crime involving cell phone evidence, location data, or a search warrant, call us 24/7 at 409-WASNT-ME or 409-740-1111.