Carolina Criminal Defense & DUI Lawyer UpdatesGoogle Location History now carries Fourth Amendment protection when police obtain it from Google during a criminal investigation. On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court held in Chatrie v. United States that police conduct a search when they acquire historical cell phone location data from Google, even when the request covers only a limited time and even though Google keeps the records on its servers.
That does not make every digital location search unlawful. It does not mean the evidence in Chatrie must be suppressed. It does not prevent police from using location data to investigate serious crimes.
Key Point | Google Location History is not routine business paperwork simply because a technology company stores it. It can reveal where a phone traveled, where it stopped, and what private places it reached. When the government demands that information, the Fourth Amendment applies.
government trust against the structural necessity of constitutional discipline. Whether this evolution strengthens justice or weakens liberty depends on how future courts interpret the limits of “reasonableness” in applying the Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule.
a search warrant?
law in decades. The opinion not only interprets N.C.G.S. § 15A-974 but also redefines how North Carolina courts understand the relationship between the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina State Constitution.
had fresh memories of British abuses of power before and during the Revolutionary era. They worried that without explicit protections, such as safeguards against arbitrary searches and seizures or other infringements, a new federal government might oppress the people just as past tyrannies had. This concern for fundamental liberties set the stage for North Carolina’s insistence on a Bill of Rights.
and medical conditions that could affect impairment assessments. This article examines the different types of experts used in North Carolina DWI cases, how courts determine whether their testimony is admissible under Rule 702, and what legal considerations apply when presenting expert evidence in court.
screening at the roadside and an evidentiary test under the state’s implied consent laws. These procedures are guided by statutes like G.S. 20-16.2, which defines the expectations placed on a driver once probable cause is established. Although both tests relate to detecting alcohol, they serve different functions and carry different legal consequences.