The question
Whether police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they obtained a cell-phone user's Google Location History data through a geofence warrant.
Chatrie v. United States
What the Court decided
The Court vacated the Fourth Circuit's judgment and remanded. It held that police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Okello Chatrie's Google Location History data, because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information. The Court reasoned that Location History gives an even more detailed and revealing record of a person's movements than the cell-site location information it treated as a search in Carpenter, and that the third-party doctrine does not strip that protection. The Court did not decide whether the multi-step geofence warrant was reasonable, leaving the particularity and probable-cause questions for the Court of Appeals on remand.
How the justices split
6-3The Court's opinion
Kagan, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Jackson
The Court held that police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they obtained Chatrie's Location History data. It reasoned that everything Carpenter relied on to treat cell-site location information as a search applies as well or better to Location History, which pinpoints location within about twenty meters, records a position every two minutes, and can estimate the floor of a building. The Court held that the third-party doctrine does not apply because Location History is revealing and not truly shared, and that Fourth Amendment protection does not depend on the quantity of data or on whether monitoring is short-term. It left for the Court of Appeals whether the multi-step geofence warrant satisfied the requirements of particularity and probable cause.
Concurring
Jackson, joined by Sotomayor
Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Sotomayor, writing separately while joining the Court's opinion holding that the acquisition of the Location History data was a Fourth Amendment search.
Concurring in the judgment
Gorsuch, writing alone
Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, agreeing with the outcome that the case should be vacated and remanded without joining the Court's reasoning.
Dissenting
Alito, joined by Thomas, Barrett
Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Thomas joined as to Part I, and Justice Barrett joined as to Parts II-B, II-C-1, and II-C-2. The dissent disputed the Court's conclusion that acquiring the Location History data was a Fourth Amendment search.
Dissenting
Barrett, writing alone
Justice Barrett filed a separate dissenting opinion setting out her own view against treating the acquisition of the location data as a Fourth Amendment search.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
Police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Chatrie's Location History data from Google.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court reasoned that an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court declined to apply the third-party doctrine to Location History, following Carpenter's treatment of cell-site location information.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court left to the Court of Appeals the question whether the multi-step geofence warrant satisfied the requirements of particularity and probable cause.
Source: syllabus, Held
Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Jackson, and the judgment vacated and remanded the Fourth Circuit.
Source: syllabus, lineup