October Term 2025 · Docket 25-112
Did a Geofence Warrant Searching Google Location Data Violate the Fourth Amendment?
Okello Chatrie says a warrant that let police search Google's location records around a bank robbery broke Fourth Amendment rules. The United States says the search was lawful and asks the Court to uphold it.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
This session was the initial argument, with no reargument. Chatrie's counsel asked the Court to hold the geofence warrant unconstitutional. He argued step 1 itself constituted a search of private papers. He said step-1 probable cause here would be no.
He distinguished voluntary private disclosure, like the Jacobsen case, from compelled government access. He agreed the record lacks criteria and said the warrant left selection to police without standards. He stated three devices were identified in the end.
The government asked the Court to uphold the warrant. It effectively agreed geofence access is not a search requiring a warrant. It relied on Knotts for the point that public movements carry no privacy expectation. It conceded warrantless tracking into a private residence would be very difficult to justify.
Justices tested assumptions on both sides. Justice Thomas tested whether anonymized step-1 results still counted as a violation. Chief Justice Roberts tested whether user choice about location history mattered. Justice Alito tested whether voluntary enabling defeats protection. Justice Kagan tested adoption rates. Justice Jackson tested the step-1 radius and time window.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 1-9 — Transcript, file page 1, lines 1-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 29-9 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 29-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 105, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 105, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 23-37 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 23-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 135, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 135, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 137, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 137, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 139, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 139, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 139, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 139, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 41-21 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 41-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 140, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 140, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 147, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 147, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 29-13 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 29-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 47-17 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 47-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 31-9 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 31-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 39-7 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 39-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 29-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-45 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 33-43 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-55 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 27-15 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 27-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 39-53 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 39-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 76, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 76, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 76, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 76, lines 7-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 7-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 81, lines 47-13 — Transcript, file page 81, lines 47-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 87, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 87, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 35-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 35-11
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The Court heard argument on April 27, 2026, and has not announced a decision. Questions from the bench are not votes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 29-13 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 29-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 29-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 33-43 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 39-53 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 39-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 23-29
How the case got here
Police obtained a warrant to search Google's location records covering a geographic area around a bank robbery. The warrant worked in steps. First, Google searched many accounts and returned anonymous results. Later steps identified specific people and gave police more data. Chatrie says the later steps lacked proper limits and cause.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 1-9 — Transcript, file page 1, lines 1-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 140, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 140, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 147, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 147, lines 11-15
What each side wants
Chatrie asks the Court to rule the geofence warrant unconstitutional. He says it lacked probable cause and particularity. He also asks the Court to find step 2 required a new warrant.
The United States asks the Court to uphold the search. It argues geofence access is not a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant. It relies on the Knotts case about public movements.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 29-13 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 29-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 29-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 33-43 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 39-53 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 39-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 23-29
What each side says
Chatrie's side says the software query searched every user's virtual safety deposit box. Google's Sensorvault is organized per user account, like separate lockers. He says Google's reserved rights to access data are not user consent for government searches.
He disputes that enabling location history waives Fourth Amendment protection. He says using cloud services does not equal consent to government searches. He also says particularity must describe the Google accounts searched, not just the physical area. He says lack of particularized criteria alone would suffice to invalidate the warrant. He stated three devices were identified in the end.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 29-13 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 29-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 29-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 33-43 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 39-53 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 39-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 23-29
What the justices asked
Justice Thomas questioned whether step 1 violated the rules given anonymized results. Chatrie's counsel conceded the step-1 returns were anonymized. He still argued step 1 effected a search across accounts.
Chief Justice Roberts asked why this matters if users can turn off location history. He also asked whether disclosing data to a third party makes it accessible, like leaving shades open. Justice Alito questioned whether voluntarily enabling location history defeats protection. Justice Kagan asked if it matters that only a small percentage of users enable location history.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 137, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 137, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 139, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 139, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 139, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 139, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 27-15 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 27-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 7-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 29-33
Why it matters
A voluntary-exposure rationale could extend to email and other cloud data, Chatrie's counsel answered. He said voluntariness matters for knowingly created business records, but not for private cloud-stored data. He disputed that Google's terms eliminate protections, noting similar terms cover email and documents.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 29-13 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 29-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 29-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 33-43 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 39-53 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 39-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 23-29
What the Court decided
The Supreme Court held that when police obtained Chatrie's cell-phone location data from Google. They conducted a Fourth Amendment search, because people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that information. The Court declined to decide whether the multi-step geofence warrant itself met the Fourth Amendment's requirements, leaving those questions to the lower court.
The Supreme Court vacated the Fourth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 2, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 2, lines 1-1
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 5, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 5, lines 1-1
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 29-13 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 29-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 29-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 33-43 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 39-53 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 39-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 29-13 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 29-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 29-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 33-43 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 39-53 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 39-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 23-29
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 3 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Removed an unsupported statement that the Court had not ruled; the available source set did not establish that absence.
- Revision 4 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Corrected unsupported no-ruling language and clarified that the article's disposition summary is incomplete.
- Revision 5 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Added the holding and disposition from the verified official Court opinion.
- Revision 6 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Added the holding and disposition from the verified official Court opinion.
- Revision 7 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.