# Oral Argument: Chatrie v. United States

Page: https://stenobird.com/podcast/the-high-court-report-7304353/oral-argument-chatrie-v-united-states
Text version: https://stenobird.com/podcast/the-high-court-report-7304353/oral-argument-chatrie-v-united-states.md
Podcast: [The High Court Report](https://stenobird.com/podcast/the-high-court-report-7304353)
Published: 2026-04-27T21:00:00+00:00
Episode link: https://thehighcourtreport.com//oral-argument-chatrie-v-united-states
Audio file: https://episodes.captivate.fm/episode/c534294f-3f8e-4b84-8c1d-62d161247604.mp3
Processing state: not_requested
JSON: https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/the-high-court-report-7304353/episodes/oral-argument-chatrie-v-united-states
Duration seconds: 7317

## Resource

Chatrie v. United States | Case No. 25-112 | Docket Link: Here Oral Advocates: Petitioner (Chatrie): Adam G. Unikowsky of Jenner & Block Respondent (United States): Eric J. Feigin of the Department of Justice Question Presented: Whether the execution of a geofence warrant — compelling Google to search the location data of all users to identify devices near a crime scene — violated the Fourth Amendment. Overview: Police ordered Google to scan hundreds of millions of users' private location records to catch a bank robber, without naming any suspect. The Court now decides whether geofence warrants survive the Fourth Amendment's ban on general searches. Posture: Fourth Circuit en banc affirmed denial of suppression in a single-sentence per curiam opinion. Main Arguments: Chatrie (Petitioner): (1) Location History data constitutes Chatrie's property, making government access a trespass; (2) The warrant operated as an unconstitutional general warrant by compelling Google to search all users without individualized probable cause; (3) Each warrant step independently failed particularity and probable cause requirements Government (Respondent): (1) Chatrie voluntarily opted into Location History, triggering the third-party doctrine and forfeiting any privacy claim in two hours of public movements; (2) Chatrie's property theory was forfeited below and lacks any foundation in American law; (3) The magistrate-issued warrant satisfied probable cause and particularity, and the good-faith exception independently bars suppression Implications: A Chatrie victory likely ends geofence warrants as currently used — law enforcement would need to identify specific accounts before any search, fundamentally limiting their ability to identify unknown suspects through third-party tech platfor…

## Actions

- request_transcript: `POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/the-high-court-report-7304353/episodes/oral-argument-chatrie-v-united-states/transcription-requests` — Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.
- read_markdown: `GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/the-high-court-report-7304353/oral-argument-chatrie-v-united-states.md` — Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.

A page view does not enqueue transcription. Agents should invoke `request_transcript` explicitly when they need this episode processed.

## Transcript

Full transcripts are not published on public pages unless there is a clear rights basis.