Chatrie v. United States
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Chatrie v. United States and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Chatrie v. United States.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether obtaining location data from Google through a geofence warrant constituted a Fourth Amendment search. The Court found that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cell-phone location information. The case was remanded to the Fourth Circuit to assess the warrant's compliance with Fourth Amendment requirements.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Chatrie v. United States.
The Court held that police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Chatrie’s location data from Google.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Chatrie v. United States. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Search and Seizure is relevant to Chatrie v. United States
The case primarily addresses whether obtaining location data from Google constitutes a Fourth Amendment search.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Chatrie’s location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Chatrie v. United States
The case involves the legality of the warrant process used to obtain location data, implicating procedural fairness.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The warrant issued here, as described earlier, was an uncommon, multi-step one, and the parties have contested the legality of each stage of the search process it authorized.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Chatrie v. United States
The Court's decision involves reviewing the actions of law enforcement and lower courts regarding the warrant and search process.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Fourth Circuit did not address the questions that unusual warrant raises. Because this is 'a court of review, not of first view,' the Court leaves it up to the Court of Appeals to decide whether, at each step of the search process, the warrant satisfied the Fourth Amendment’s requirements of particularity and probable cause.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Chatrie v. United States that support the summary and concepts above.
Police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Chatrie’s location data from Google.
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals’ reasonable expectations of privacy.
Location History provides an even more fine-tuned picture of a person’s movements.