Episode

The Privacy of Physical Movement: Chatrie v. United States

Podcast
Swear on the Stand
Published
Jun 29, 2026
Duration seconds
1558
Processing state
not_requested
Canonical source
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/danielswear/episodes/The-Privacy-of-Physical-Movement-Chatrie-v--United-States-e3ledju
Audio
https://anchor.fm/s/fddb5314/podcast/play/122156094/https%3A%2F%2Fd3ctxlq1ktw2nl.cloudfront.net%2Fstaging%2F2026-5-29%2Fee0426dc-7311-fd18-965b-df057ffa3bba.m4a
JSON
/v1/public/podcasts/swear-on-the-stand-7111404/episodes/the-privacy-of-physical-movement-chatrie-v-united-states
Markdown
/podcast/swear-on-the-stand-7111404/the-privacy-of-physical-movement-chatrie-v-united-states.md

Actions

  • POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/swear-on-the-stand-7111404/episodes/the-privacy-of-physical-movement-chatrie-v-united-states/transcription-requests
    Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.
  • GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/swear-on-the-stand-7111404/the-privacy-of-physical-movement-chatrie-v-united-states.md
    Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.

Summary

This episode presents the United States Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Chatrie v. United States , a landmark case concerning the constitutionality of geofence warrants . The Court ruled that law enforcement conducts a Fourth Amendment search when it acquires a person's Location History data from private companies like Google, as individuals maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their physical movements. Justice Kagan's majority opinion argues that this digital tracking provides an intimate window into a person’s life , comparable to the cell-site data protected in the earlier Carpenter ruling. While the Court established that such data collection requires constitutional oversight, it remanded the case to determine if the specific multi-step warrant used to identify Chatrie for a bank robbery was sufficiently particular and supported by probable cause . Separate opinions reflect deep judicial divisions, with some justices advocating for a property-based approach to digital effects, while dissenters criticized the ruling as an advisory opinion regarding an obsolete technology.