Chatrie v. United States

Fourth Amendmentdigital privacygeofence warrantscriminal proceduresurveillance

Summary

Chatrie v. United States is a pending Fourth Amendment case about geofence warrants. The Supreme Court heard argument on April 27, 2026. The case will decide whether the government’s use of the geofence warrant at issue violated the Fourth Amendment.

Background & Context

This landmark Fourth Amendment case marks the first time the Court directly addressed geofence warrants. The petitioner, represented by Adam Unikowsky, argued these are unconstitutional 'general warrants', while Deputy Solicitor General Eric Feigin defended them as reasonable investigative tools under the third-party doctrine.

The Question Before the Court

Did the execution of the geofence warrant in this case violate the Fourth Amendment?

Petitioner

Chatrie

Party asking the Court to review or reverse

Argued

Geofence warrants can expose data about many innocent people.
The warrant lacked the specificity the Fourth Amendment requires.

Respondent

United States

Party defending the judgment below

Argued

The warrant was a valid investigative tool tied to a specific crime scene.
Users share location data with Google.

The Holding

Pending. The Supreme Court has not yet issued a merits decision. The case asks whether executing a geofence warrant for Google location-history data violated the Fourth Amendment.

What this means for you

The decision could reshape police access to location data held by technology companies. A ruling for Chatrie could require tighter warrants or probable-cause showings when the government seeks data about many people near a location. A ruling for the government could preserve a powerful investigative tool that can also sweep in innocent bystanders.

Key Takeaways

The case is pending; there is no Supreme Court merits holding yet.
The question is whether execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.
The warrant sought location-history data from Google for devices near a crime scene.
The case affects digital privacy, police surveillance, and bystander data collection.
The row should be revisited once the Court issues a decision.