Overview
Chatrie v. United States, read with United States v. Smith, examines how a geofence warrant reverses ordinary investigation: police start with a crime’s place and time, seek historical Google Location History for an unknown population, expand selected devices into movement histories, and seek identities. The Supreme Court held that acquiring this historical Location History is a Fourth Amendment search because its precise, frequent, retrospective records can reveal sensitive movements, even over two hours and when Google stores them. The series then separates search from reasonableness and remedy, examining probable cause, particularity, stage-by-stage judicial control, general-warrant concerns, and good faith. It preserves unresolved questions about Chatrie’s warrant, anonymous outputs, and future provider architectures.
Learning outcomes
- Chatrie holds that police access to historical Google Location History is a Fourth Amendment search.
- Location History’s precision, frequency, retrospectivity, and reach into sensitive places explain its constitutional significance.
- A geofence’s move from population to movement to identity requires stage-specific review; Chatrie leaves probable cause and particularity unresolved.
- A constitutional defect does not guarantee suppression; good faith may affect the remedy without making the search lawful.
Keywords
Preview every chapter · Unlock full text, audio, and video from chapter 4
PlansFAQ
What did Chatrie v. United States decide about geofence warrants?
Chatrie held that police conduct a Fourth Amendment search when they acquire historical Google Location History. It did not decide whether Chatrie’s warrant was reasonable at every stage or whether suppression was required.
Why does a two-hour geofence request still raise Fourth Amendment concerns?
A two-hour record can reveal a sensitive destination or route, and it comes from a precise, frequent, retrospective history searchable after the event. The short window does not automatically defeat a privacy expectation.
Why can a geofence warrant resemble a general warrant?
It begins with an unknown population defined by place and time, then lets investigators select devices for broader movement data or identities. The Fifth Circuit called comparable warrants general warrants in Smith, while Chatrie left probable cause and particularity open.
Does finding a geofence search unconstitutional require suppressing the evidence?
No. Under the good-faith exception, evidence may be admitted when officers reasonably relied on a magistrate-issued warrant, even if the warrant later fails; Chatrie left suppression for the lower court.