The Supreme Court Holds: A Geofence Warrant Is a "Search" — Here's What Chatrie Means for You
I previously wrote that the Supreme Court was about to decide whether the government can cast a digital dragnet over an entire neighborhood — scooping up the location data of hundreds or thousands of innocent people — just to find one suspect. That post ended with a question: would the rules of digital surveillance protect everyone caught in the geofence, or only the person the government was looking for?
Today, June 29, 2026, the Court answered part of that question. In Chatrie v. United States, a 6-3 majority held that when law enforcement used a geofence warrant to make Google hand over location data for everyone near a Virginia bank at the time of a 2019 robbery, the government conducted a "search" under the Fourth Amendment.
That is a meaningful win for digital privacy. But as is so often the case at the Supreme Court, the holding is narrower than the headline — and it leaves the most important question for people facing charges still unresolved.
What the Court Actually Held
Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan rejected the government's central argument — the one I flagged in my last post as the constitutional flashpoint. The government had insisted that because users "voluntarily" let Google keep their location history, they surrendered any reasonable expectation of privacy in it under the so-called third-party doctrine. The Fourth Circuit panel had accepted that reasoning.
The Supreme Court did not. Kagan wrote that a person keeps a reasonable expectation of privacy in records of where his cell phone has been, and that the police intrude on that protected interest when they demand the data — even when they take only a limited window of time, and even when they get it from a third-party tech company rather than from the phone itself.
In other words, the Court extended the logic of Carpenter v. United States(2018) — the cell-site location case — to geofence data. That is exactly the analogy the Fifth Circuit drew in United States v. Smith, and exactly the analogy the Fourth Circuit panel had refused to draw. On the threshold "search" question, the privacy side won.
What the Court Did Not Decide
Here is the part that matters most for anyone with a pending case, and the part that will get lost in the celebration.
The Court held only that a search occurred. It did not hold that this geofence warrant was unconstitutional. And it did not order the evidence against Okello Chatrie thrown out. Instead, the justices sent the case back to the lower court to decide whether the search was "reasonable"— the separate question of whether the warrant had the probable cause and particularity the Fourth Amendment requires.
Remember the procedural history from my last post: the federal district judge in Chatrie's case already found that this warrant lacked the probable cause and specificity the Constitution demands—but she let the government use the evidence anyway, under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. That good-faith problem is still sitting there. Nothing in today's decision automatically removes it.
That is why Justice Samuel Alito, dissenting in part with Justices Thomas and Barrett, argued that the majority's reasoning would send "seismic waves" through Fourth Amendment law while still making no difference to Chatrie's own conviction. Whatever you think of the dissent, it identifies the real catch: establishing that something is a search is step one, not the finish line.
This is the same theme I keep returning to for clients. A constitutional violation and a suppressed piece of evidence are two different things. The good-faith exception is the gap between them.
How This Changes the Texas Picture
My last post spent a lot of time on a divergence that directly affects Texans: federal courts in the Fifth Circuit had Smith's strong anti-geofence holding, while the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, in its fractured 2025 Wells v. State decision, leaned the other way — and state courts were free to do so because no Supreme Court ruling yet bound them.
That gap just closed, at least on the threshold question. A Supreme Court decision interpreting the Fourth Amendment binds every court in the country — state and federal alike. So:
Texas state courts are now required to treat the execution of a geofence warrant as a Fourth Amendment search. To the extent the Wells plurality reasoned that defendants had no privacy interest in this kind of voluntarily-shared location data, that reasoning is displaced. The state-versus-federal divergence I described—where a defendant facing the same evidence got a weaker decision in state court than in federal court—should no longer hold on the "is it a search?" question.
Federal courts in the Fifth Circuit keep the practical core of Smith: geofence warrants get full Fourth Amendment scrutiny. But note that the Supreme Court did not adopt Smith's most aggressive holding—the idea that geofence warrants are categorically unconstitutional general warrants that can never be saved. The Court took the narrower path: it's a search, now go decide if it was reasonable. Defense lawyers should expect the government to argue, case by case, that a particular warrant was reasonable, rather than conceding the whole category is dead.
What This Means If Geofence Data Was Used Against You
If you are facing federal or Texas state charges and the government used your phone's location data to build its case, today's ruling helps you — but you still have to fight the right battle.
The threshold argument is now settled in your favor: the government cannot wave away geofence data by claiming you "gave it to Google." It is a search, and it requires a warrant that satisfies the Fourth Amendment. That is a stronger starting position than defendants had yesterday, and it applies in state court now, not just federal court.
But the live fights are the same ones I described before. Was the warrant supported by probable cause? Did it describe the place to be searched with enough particularity, or did it command Google to rummage through hundreds of millions of accounts to find one suspect? And — the question that decided Chatrie's own case below — does the good-faith exception let the government keep the evidence even if the warrant was defective?
The practical takeaways from my last post hold up, and now carry more weight:
Preserve the issue. If geofence data is in your case, suppression motions should be filed and the record kept open. The legal landscape just shifted under everyone's feet, and you want the benefit of it.
Frame the argument around reasonableness and particularity, not just whether a search occurred — because that's where the Court left the real dispute.
Confront good faith head-on. Argue that a warrant commanding a search of an entire location database is so obviously overbroad that no reasonable officer could rely on it. That argument is now operating against the backdrop of a Supreme Court holding that this is a genuine Fourth Amendment search.
If you already have a final conviction, whether today's ruling opens a door depends on the complex and separate question of retroactivity. It's worth asking a lawyer about.
The Bigger Picture
Geofence warrants have been used in drug investigations, firearms cases, and even to identify people who attended protests. As of today, the government can no longer pretend that sweeping up that data isn't a search at all. That is real, and it will reshape how these investigations are litigated for years.
But the Court stopped short of the bright-line rule that privacy advocates — and the Fifth Circuit in Smith — wanted. It did not declare geofence warrants dead. It said they are searches that must be reasonable, and then handed the hard questions back to the lower courts. The fight over digital dragnets isn't over. It just moved to the ground where most criminal cases are actually won and lost: particularity, probable cause, and good faith.
If the government used a geofence warrant to find you, the legality of that evidence is more in play today than it was yesterday — but it is still a fight, and it is one worth having with experienced counsel.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Supreme Court decide in Chatrie v. United States? On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that law enforcement's use of a geofence warrant was a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. The Court did not strike the warrant down or order the evidence suppressed; it sent the case back to the lower court to decide whether the search was "reasonable."
Is a geofence warrant a search under the Fourth Amendment? Yes. After Chatrie (2026), demanding cell phone location data through a geofence warrant is a Fourth Amendment search. The Supreme Court held that people keep a reasonable expectation of privacy in records of where their phone has been, even when that data is held by a third party like Google for a limited time.
Did the Supreme Court ban geofence warrants? No. The Court ruled that geofence warrants are searches that require Fourth Amendment scrutiny, but it did not declare them categorically unconstitutional. The government can still seek a geofence warrant; it must satisfy the Fourth Amendment's probable cause and particularity requirements.
Does the Chatrie ruling mean evidence from a geofence warrant will be thrown out? Not automatically. The Court only decided that a search occurred and left the questions of reasonableness and suppression for the lower courts. The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule can still allow the government to use the evidence even if the warrant was defective.
How does the Chatrie ruling affect Texas defendants? The decision binds every court in the country, including Texas state courts. Texas courts must now treat a geofence warrant as a Fourth Amendment search, narrowing the prior gap between state and federal outcomes. The live issues in any given case are now particularity, probable cause, and good faith.
What is a geofence warrant? A geofence warrant is a court order that directs a company like Google to identify every device located within a defined area during a defined time window. Law enforcement uses it to generate suspects when they have no other leads, then narrows the anonymized data to specific named accounts.
What should I do if a geofence warrant was used in my case? Preserve the issue by filing a suppression motion and keeping the record open, because the law just shifted in defendants' favor on the threshold question. Argue the warrant lacked particularity and probable cause and that the good-faith exception should not apply. Consult a criminal defense attorney experienced in Fourth Amendment and digital surveillance challenges.
This article discusses general legal developments and is not legal advice. If you have been charged with a crime and believe geofence warrant evidence was used against you, consult a qualified criminal defense attorney.
Carlo D'Angelo, PC — Serving East Texas, DFW & Federal Courts Nationwide 100 East Ferguson Street, 1210, Tyler, TX 75702 · (903) 595-6776