Monday, the Supreme Court issued one of the most important Fourth Amendment decisions in years.
In Chatrie v. United States, the Court held that when police compel a third party such as Google to disclose a person’s historical location information, they conduct a distinct Fourth Amendment search, because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in Google’s stored location history, even though Google possesses the information.
That means constitutional protections apply before the government can access some of the most revealing information our smartphones generate every day. And it’s not just Google location data. So why does this matter for the general public?
Your smartphone doesn’t just tell companies where you are. Over time, it creates a remarkably detailed picture of your life including where you sleep, where you work, what doctors you visit, what religious services you attend, who you spend time with, and where you travel.
And in 2026, this can create implications for those attending ICE protests, visiting health clinics, and so much more. In previous privacy and Fourth Amendment cases, the Court was working its way towards recognizing the nature of the digital world we live in, but scholars criticized the Court for not formally acknowledging this.
Writing for the majority in a 6-3 split decision, Justice Kagan recognized that reality.
The Court explained that location history “resembles other private materials—think of emails, documents, photographs, or calendars” that users reasonably consider their own, even when stored on a company’s servers.
Additionally, “An 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…Location History resembles other private materials—think of emails, documents, photographs, or calendars—that even if stored on Google’s servers, a user reasonably views as his own…Where the Fourth Amendment applies, it applies—regardless of the quality or quantity of information the government obtains.”
For decades, courts often relied on the “Third-Party Doctrine,” which generally held that information voluntarily shared with a business received less constitutional protection.
But as the Court recognized in Carpenter, and reaffirmed here, modern technology changes that analysis. People don’t surrender their privacy simply because smartphones and cloud services are now part of everyday life.
Our Founding Fathers drafted the Fourth Amendment with the reality in mind that citizens should be free to go about their daily life without fear of government surveillance or intrusion.
Over time, technology has continually transformed surveillance into something so easy, so painless, what’s the harm? The harm is simple: we the people have always had protections from warrantless government intrusion. The Supreme Court is just now finally catching constitutional doctrine up to the technological times.
Importantly, the Court did not hold that every geofence warrant is unconstitutional. Instead, it answered the threshold question: obtaining this kind of digital location history is a Fourth Amendment search.
The case now returns to the lower courts to determine what constitutional safeguards apply. That leaves an important opportunity for state legislatures and courts to begin establishing clear rules governing government access to highly revealing digital location information.
Utah can lead by adopting statutory safeguards that protect constitutional rights while giving law enforcement clear, predictable standards. The Fourth Amendment was written to protect Americans from unreasonable government searches. As technology evolves, those protections must evolve as well.
Chatrie reminds us that constitutional rights don’t disappear simply because our personal information now lives in the cloud.
