Continued Scrutiny of Location Data: Supreme Court Expands Fourth Amendment Protections for Location Data Disclosures

Key Takeaways

• The U.S. Supreme Court held that law enforcement’s use of geofence warrants to obtain cellphone location data is a Fourth Amendment “search,” recognizing that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in highly detailed location-history information maintained by third-party technology providers. 
• The Court did not ban geofence warrants outright. Instead, it ruled that such requests must satisfy constitutional requirements, including probable cause and particularity. 
• Companies that collect, store, or process location data—including telecom providers and app developers—should review their data governance and law-enforcement response procedures.

On June 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Chatrie v. United States, held that law enforcement’s use of a “geofence warrant,” which instructed a company to provide the historical location data for cellphone users near a particular location, constituted a “search” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.

Chatrie v. United States

This case focused on whether “[a]n individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone’s location, and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information—even though for only a limited time, and from a third-party tech company.”

The case originated from a bank robbery investigation in Virginia. Law enforcement obtained a geofence warrant directing a technology company that collects and stores location-history information to identify all devices located within a defined geographic area during a specified time window close in time to when the robbery occurred. The warrant, described as “uncommon” by the Court, operated in stages. It first collected anonymized location information for all devices present within the geofence boundary, then progressively narrowed the universe of users before ultimately obtaining identifying information for selected accounts.

The Supreme Court held that the government’s acquisition of this cell phone location-history information constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment, reasoning that modern location data is sufficiently detailed and highly revealing to implicate constitutionally protected privacy interests. Notably, the Court did not hold that all geofence warrants are categorically unconstitutional. Instead, it concluded that acquiring location-history data through such warrants is a search that must satisfy Fourth Amendment requirements. The Court remanded the case to the Fourth Circuit for further proceedings, including consideration of whether the warrant satisfied the Fourth Amendment’s requirements of particularity and probable cause.

Looking Ahead

This decision is the latest in a string of efforts at the federal and state level to protect individuals’ location data. Notably, over the past couple of years, several states have imposed heightened safeguards for the collection and use of location data, with some states outright banning certain practices.

Federal and state policymakers have been keenly focused on the sensitivity of location data, as seen in the Federal Trade Commission’s recent settlement with Kochava, as well as renewed scrutiny by lawmakers on data brokers’ sale of location data to law enforcement.

Given these developments, telecommunications carriers, application providers, and other companies that collect or maintain location data should review their policies governing the collection, retention, and disclosure of location data, as well as their procedures for responding to warrants, subpoenas, and other governmental requests seeking the disclosure of location data. Companies should consider consulting legal counsel before disclosing location-history information to ensure that the warrant request satisfies applicable Fourth Amendment requirements.

Note: We will amend this Alert upon the findings by the Fourth Circuit on whether the warrant satisfied the Fourth Amendment. Plus, it remains to be seen how impactful the Supreme Court’s ruling will be on law enforcement’s pursuit of criminal conduct. We will keep you up to date on these developments.