U.S. Supreme Court Addresses Geofencing Searches

What’s geofencing? It is the use of GPS, cellular data, Wi-Fi, Google location history, or other similar technology to create a virtual boundary which can outline what devices were in a certain area during a certain time.

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed geofencing in the Fourth Amendment context. [1] As a reminder, the Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. [2] In 2018, the Supreme Court had previously recognized the importance of cell phones in modern life and held that the Fourth Amendment protections apply when law enforcement seek to access historical cell phone records that provide a complete account of the user’s movements. [3] Recognizing the similarity between cell site location information and Google location history the Court properly held that accessing location history information constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment:

“[W]e hold that police officers invade a cell-phone user’s reasonable expectation of privacy when they access his Location History. It does not matter if the time period scrutinized was only two hours. Nor does it matter that the materials obtained were handed over by a third-party tech company. When the government ‘accesses historical cell phone’ location information—Location History as much as CSLI—it ‘conducts a search under the Fourth Amendment.’” [4]

Concluding, the Court noted that the decision followed from the judicial obligation to guard against the risk of undue encroachment into the privacy of citizens.

This is a good decision for privacy and criminal defendants. If you or someone you know is in need of postconviction relief or an appeal, contact Peter Armstrong, Attorney at Law for a free consultation.

REFERENCES:

1.    Chatrie v. United States, 609 U.S. ___ (2026) (available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf)

2.    Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296, 303 (2018). (available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/16-402/)

3.    Id. at 312-13.

4.    Chatrie (citing Carpenter, 585 U.S. at 300).