Criminal Law

CAC Release: Justices Push Back Against Government’s Claim of Unrestricted Access to Cell-Phone Location Information

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Chatrie v. United States, a case in which the Court is considering whether “geofence warrants” violate the Fourth Amendment, Constitutional Accountability Center Deputy Chief Counsel Brian Frazelle issued the following reaction:

This morning’s argument illustrated the challenges the digital age poses to preserving our Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable government searches. Although the Justices asked difficult questions of both sides and could resolve the case in various ways, most Justices appeared skeptical of the government’s broadest arguments.

As the Justices seemed to recognize, allowing the government to exploit the GPS data generated by our cell phones to track our every movement—without adequate judicial oversight—risks compromising the privacy of our homes, the security of places of worship, and the protection afforded to other data that we routinely store with third-party companies like Google, such as photos and written documents.

These justifiable concerns reflect the text and history of the Fourth Amendment. As our amicus brief discusses, the Amendment explicitly guarantees “the people” the “right to be secure” against unreasonable searches. And as history shows, at every stage of events leading up to the Amendment, an overriding concern was that giving the government unrestrained search authority violates the security of everyone who is vulnerable to that authority, whether or not they end up being singled out for scrutiny.

Today, cell-phone GPS data constantly records private details about our movements and activities, which can be retraced years after the fact. Allowing the government to access this data without meaningful judicial guardrails would undermine the people’s right to be secure in their persons and property.

More from Criminal Law

Criminal Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Anibowei v. Blanche

In Anibowei v. Blanche, the Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether the Fourth Amendment permits law enforcement officers—without a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion of illegal activity—to search the contents of...
Criminal Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Kian v. State of Florida

In Kian v. State of Florida, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to have at least twelve members.
Criminal Law
June 29, 2026

CAC Release: In Important Victory for Digital Privacy, Supreme Court Holds that Even Short-Term Police Monitoring of Cell-Phone Location Information Is Regulated by the Fourth Amendment

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Chatrie v. United States,...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Criminal Law
May 28, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Recognizes Clear Pathway to Habeas Relief in Mississippi Jury Race-Discrimination Case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Pitchford v. Cain, a...
Criminal Law
May 28, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Majority Rules that Judges Cannot Consider Changing Views of Crime when Reducing Sentences

WASHINGTON, DC – Following the Supreme Court’s decision this morning in Rutherford v. United States...
Criminal Law
May 28, 2026

CAC Release: Court’s Commitment to Text and History Falters in Compassionate Release Case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Fernandez v. United States, a case...