Supreme Court rules police need a warrant for Google location data, limiting the third-party doctrine

This is a positive development for privacy. It reduces the surface area of the assumption that the data in a third party essentially avoids a warrant (today they basically just ask). It also goes into detail on the idea that you can't use the device without a bunch of prompts.

SCOTUS: 6-3, the Supreme Court declared geofence warrants unconstitutional. Police can no longer sweep up location data from every phone near a crime scene without naming a suspect. The Fourth Amendment still means something.

@AncientSnipe184 Seemingly

Excellent 4th amendment decision from SCOTUS -

Chatrie v. United States - No. 25–112. Argued April 27, 2026—Decided June 29, 2026

"Police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Chatrie’s location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information."

Essentially, police cannot access your cell phone location data from internet providers merely bc you're in the vicinity where a crime was committed. An extension of 4th amendment protections. Huge win for privacy advocates such as myself.

Link to decision in comments.

Enjoy!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf

@amuse This is so narrow. It's a win, but what does it mean without FISA? You don't need a geofence with Flock tech.

@lauferlaw Same for AirTag and the like?

@amuse As long as the Flock cameras keep going up, the surveillance state is alive and well!

@amuse Now do these fucking Flock cameras!

@lauferlaw It's cool they're still willing to make 1 good decision for every 700 bad ones.

@amuse FYI iPhones expose users to less mass location data collection by design compared to the Google ecosystem.

@amuse So will the J6 convictions that relied on geofencing be reversed?

@amuse Cool. Now do Flock.

@lauferlaw Getting to maybe .... Secure in their persons and papers; huh?

@amuse Good news 📰