English
Spanish
You did not necessarily hand your location to the police. A company may have produced it under a court order you never saw, and now cell phone location data is part of a Nevada criminal case.
That type of evidence has become one of the most contested areas of digital search law. In June 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court decided its first major geofence warrant case and confirmed that obtaining this kind of location information can qualify as a Fourth Amendment search. The Court, however, left several of the hardest questions unresolved, including whether a particular warrant was sufficiently supported by probable cause and particularity.
How phone location data becomes evidence in a Nevada criminal case
Most traditional warrants begin with a person or device investigators already suspect.
A reverse location search warrant, commonly called a geofence warrant, works differently. Investigators begin with a geographic area and time period and then identify devices that were present within that boundary.
In Chatrie v. United States, decided June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court described the multi-step process developed for Google’s geofence warrants.
At the first stage, Google produced anonymized location data for devices within the geofence, including coordinates, timestamps, accuracy estimates, and information about the source of the location data.
Investigators could then narrow the list and request additional information about selected devices.
At a later stage, the government could request identifying information for a smaller group of users.
In Chatrie, the original geofence covered a 150-meter radius around a credit union during a one-hour period. That initial search returned 19 devices. Investigators later narrowed the group to nine and ultimately obtained identifying information for three users, including Chatrie.
The important distinction is that police did not need to physically seize the phone to obtain this information.
Geofence evidence comes from records maintained by a technology company, which creates a different Fourth Amendment issue from a case involving direct seizure and search of a device.
The Supreme Court confirmed that obtaining location history is a search
In Chatrie v. United States, the Supreme Court held that police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they obtained Chatrie’s location information from Google.
That means the government can no longer simply argue that requesting this type of phone location history from a private company’s servers falls entirely outside Fourth Amendment protection.
But the Court did not declare geofence warrants categorically unconstitutional.
It also did not decide whether the particular warrant in Chatrie was valid, order suppression of the evidence, or overturn the conviction on that basis.
Instead, the Court sent the case back for further consideration of whether the warrant satisfied the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause and particularity requirements at each stage of the search.
The Court also left the good-faith exception unresolved.
That matters because even if a court finds that a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, suppression of the evidence does not automatically follow.
The strongest challenges may arise at different stages of the search
A geofence search does not happen in a single step.
That creates multiple points where a defense lawyer may examine whether investigators had sufficient probable cause and particularity.
The first question is the original geofence itself: how large was the geographic area, how long was the time window, and what evidence justified collecting information about every device within it?
The next questions concern how investigators narrowed the anonymous device list.
Who decided which devices deserved additional scrutiny? What criteria were used? Did a judge authorize that narrowing process, or did investigators make those decisions themselves after receiving the initial data?
Those distinctions became important in the separate opinions in Chatrie.
Justice Jackson’s concurrence focused particularly on the later stages, questioning whether officers obtained increasingly sensitive information without returning to a magistrate to establish additional probable cause.
Justice Gorsuch’s opinion focused more broadly on the government’s actions at both the initial collection stage and later examination of the data.
For a Nevada defendant, the practical point is that the warrant should be reviewed stage by stage, not merely treated as one document that either passes or fails.
Nevada largely relies on federal standards for electronic records
Nevada law allows a district court to order an electronic communication service provider to disclose certain customer records when statutory requirements are satisfied.
NRS 179.467 incorporates the standards found in federal law rather than creating an entirely separate Nevada standard for these records.
That means federal Fourth Amendment law remains especially important in Nevada location-data cases.
Federal law provides several mechanisms for obtaining electronic records, including warrants and certain disclosure orders.
Some of those mechanisms use standards below traditional probable cause for particular categories of records.
Whether a specific type of location history can lawfully be obtained under one of those procedures can depend on the records requested, the technology involved, and the constitutional protections recognized by the courts.
Nevada’s statutes do not contain a detailed standalone geofence-warrant framework.
As a result, many Nevada challenges to this evidence are likely to focus heavily on the Fourth Amendment, the warrant itself, and the manner in which investigators obtained and narrowed the location information.
A geofence warrant is different from a cell-site simulator
Not every form of phone location tracking works the same way.
A geofence warrant seeks records already maintained by a technology company.
A cell-site simulator, sometimes described as a device that imitates a cellular tower, collects information directly from phones within its operating area rather than requesting stored records from a provider.
Those technologies create different legal and factual questions.
That is why a defense lawyer first needs to identify exactly what produced the location evidence.
A report described generally as “phone location evidence” could involve Google location history, carrier records, another technology company’s records, a cell-site simulator, or another source entirely.
The source determines which statutes, warrants, and constitutional arguments may apply.
Technology changes can affect how geofence evidence is obtained
The technology underlying geofence warrants is also changing.
The Supreme Court noted in Chatrie that Google changed how it stores certain Location History information in 2025, moving more of that material onto individual users’ devices rather than retaining it centrally on its own servers.
That change may affect Google’s ability to respond to traditional geofence warrants involving that particular product.
It does not mean every form of reverse-location investigation has disappeared.
Other companies may possess different categories of location data, and investigators may use different methods depending on the provider and technology involved.
For that reason, the first question in any current Nevada case should be where the location evidence actually came from.
What to ask your lawyer about phone location evidence
“Phone records” can describe several completely different types of evidence.
A defense lawyer should identify the company that produced the data, the specific product or database involved, and the legal instrument the government used to obtain it.
- Was there a warrant?
- Was there a disclosure order?
- How broad was the geographic area and time window?
- At what point was your device selected from the larger group?
- Who made that decision?
Those questions can help reveal whether investigators followed the authorization actually given by the court and whether probable cause and particularity existed at every meaningful stage.
Discovery is especially important because a defendant may not know how the government obtained the location evidence until the prosecution produces the underlying records.
Suppression deadlines matter in Nevada criminal cases
A potential constitutional argument is useful only if it is raised at the proper time.
Nevada law generally requires a motion to suppress to be filed before trial unless the defendant did not previously have an opportunity to bring the motion or did not know the grounds for doing so.
In Clark County, local court deadlines can also require written suppression motions to be filed well before the scheduled trial date.
Late motions may sometimes be permitted for good cause, but that is not something a defendant should rely on unnecessarily.
Once location evidence appears in discovery, the warrant, supporting affidavit, production records, and investigative steps should be reviewed promptly.
The issue is not simply whether police obtained location data.
The issue is whether the government obtained and used that information in a way that complied with the Fourth Amendment and the limits of the court’s authorization.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the June 2026 Supreme Court decision automatically keep geofence evidence out of my Nevada trial?
No. Chatrie established that obtaining the location information at issue constituted a Fourth Amendment search, but the Supreme Court did not hold that all geofence warrants are unconstitutional or require suppression. Questions involving probable cause, particularity, reasonableness, and the good-faith exception can still determine whether evidence is admitted in an individual case.
What if my location data came from my phone carrier instead of Google?
The legal analysis can be different. Chatrie involved Google Location History, while phone carriers can maintain other forms of cell-site location information. The Supreme Court’s reasoning about privacy in phone location data may be relevant, but the exact constitutional argument depends on the type of records, how they were obtained, and the facts of the particular investigation.
Can police obtain geofence-type location records from companies other than Google?
Potentially. The Supreme Court noted that companies including Apple, Lyft, Snapchat, and Uber have received geofence warrants. Different companies maintain different types of location information, so the provider involved can affect what records exist, how precise they are, and how investigators obtained them.
Conclusion
Phone location evidence can look definitive when it appears in discovery, but the underlying search may involve several separate decisions about where to search, how much data to collect, which devices to investigate further, and when to identify a particular user.
The Supreme Court has now confirmed that obtaining this type of location information can constitute a Fourth Amendment search, while leaving major questions about probable cause, particularity, and suppression open for further litigation.
If cell phone location data, a geofence warrant, carrier records, or other digital location evidence is being used against you in a Nevada criminal case, contact The Defense Firm for a free confidential consultation. A defense lawyer can review the warrant, affidavit, discovery, and investigative steps to determine what Fourth Amendment challenges may be available in your case.