{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","provider_name":"Transistor","provider_url":"https://transistor.fm","author_name":"Unreasonable Expectations: A 4th Amendment Podcast","title":"Episode 1: Chatrie v. United States (The Day Your Phone's Location History Became a Search)","html":"","width":"100%","height":180,"duration":1421,"description":"A man robbed a Virginia credit union with a phone to his ear, and that one detail sent the case all the way to the Supreme Court. In the debut episode of Unreasonable Expectations, Jay Ruane breaks down Chatrie v. United States, decided June 29, 2026, the ruling that answers a question defense lawyers have fought over for years: does the government need a warrant to pull your client's Google Location History through a geofence?\nJay walks through the facts, the three-step geofence process, and the wild road this case took to the Court, then unpacks how Justice Kagan's majority extends Carpenter, why two hours of data still counts as a search, and how the Court handled the third-party doctrine. You also get the Jackson and Gorsuch concurrences, the Alito and Barrett dissents, and a plain reading of what the Court did and did not decide. It closes with seven takeaways you can carry into your next suppression hearing.\nIn this episode:\n00:00 The robbery that started it all\n01:15 Welcome to Unreasonable Expectations, and what this show does every week\n03:00 Two terms you need: geofence and Location History\n05:00 The three-step warrant, and how Chatrie got identified\n06:15 The wild road to the Supreme Court, and the good-faith trap\n08:00 The holding and the lineup: five behind Kagan, six for the result, three dissenting\n10:00 How the majority extends Carpenter, and why two hours is still a search\n14:30 What the Court did not decide: the warrant, reasonableness, and good faith\n15:30 A word from our sponsor, The Criminal Mastermind\n16:30 The concurrences: Jackson's roadmap and Gorsuch's property theory\n18:30 The dissents: Alito on advisory opinions, Barrett on the third-party doctrine\n20:00 Seven takeaways for practicing criminal defense lawyers\n23:00 Rate, review, and subscribe\nKey point: The Court held that acquiring Google Location History is a Fourth Amendment search, even for a two-hour window and even from a third party. It did not strike the warrant or reach good...","thumbnail_url":"https://img.transistorcdn.com/WbKmp4MdxdJLIkqoPdKaEvr3u8-XblFTrtSm8eXUUC4/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:400/h:400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS82M2Y3/OTY4YmVlOTA0NTQ2/YTdjYjU0M2UzOGM5/NjNmZi5qcGc.webp","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":300}