Can Police Use Google Location Data in a Houston Criminal Case?

July 16, 2026

Written and reviewed by George Napier, Founding Attorney at The Napier Law Firm — former Montgomery County Assistant District Attorney and Felony Chief Prosecutor.

Police investigations increasingly start with digital trails: Google Location History, cell-site records, license-plate readers, surveillance cameras, and app data. If you or someone you love is charged after police used Google location data, do not assume the evidence is automatically admissible.

Chatrie v. United States is important because the Supreme Court treated police acquisition of Google Location History through a geofence warrant as a Fourth Amendment search. That does not automatically win every suppression motion, but it gives the defense a serious constitutional framework to work with.

What happened in Chatrie?

The case began with a credit-union robbery in Midlothian, Virginia. Witnesses and surveillance footage showed that the robber approached from the corner of a nearby church and appeared to be talking on a cell phone. Police did not have a suspect, so they turned to location data instead of starting with a known person.

Officers applied for a geofence warrant directed to Google. The warrant covered a 150-meter radius around the credit union for a window beginning 30 minutes before the robbery and ending 30 minutes after it. That meant Google was asked to search its Location History database for devices that happened to be in the area during the selected time.

The warrant used a three-step process. First, Google produced anonymized location points for devices inside the geofence. Second, officers narrowed the list and requested additional anonymized movement data for a broader two-hour period. Third, after further narrowing, Google produced identifying information—names and phone numbers—for selected users.

Okello Chatrie was one of the users identified. His data showed that his phone entered the geofence before the robbery and later moved toward a residential area. After additional investigation, he was indicted for robbery and firearms offenses. He moved to suppress the Google data, arguing that police obtained it through an unconstitutional search.

The district court criticized the warrant but denied suppression under the good-faith exception. The Fourth Circuit ultimately affirmed. The Supreme Court took the case to decide whether acquiring Chatrie’s Google Location History was a Fourth Amendment search, and held that it was.

The short answer

Police may be able to use Google location data, but they generally need to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. Chatrie makes clear that geofence data is not just ordinary business information sitting outside constitutional protection.

For Texas defendants, the key question is not merely whether Google had the data. The question is whether police lawfully obtained it, whether the warrant was sufficiently particular, whether probable cause justified the search, and whether the evidence should be suppressed.

Why this matters in Texas criminal defense

A geofence warrant can sweep in people who were near a location but had nothing to do with a crime. That matters in Houston, where a single apartment complex, shopping center, gas station, or office building may include dozens or hundreds of innocent people within a small radius.

In robbery, burglary, homicide, drug, and federal cases, location data can become the backbone of the State’s theory. The defense should not treat it as magic. Location data has limits, assumptions, accuracy ranges, retention issues, and constitutional limits.

Defense checklist: geofence and location-data cases

Issue	Why it matters
Whether a search occurred	Chatrie held that obtaining Google Location History data was a Fourth Amendment search.
Scope of the geofence	Courts will look at the area, time window, and number of uninvolved people swept in.
Particularity and probable cause	The warrant must be tied to evidence of a specific crime, not a fishing expedition.
Good-faith exception	Even if a warrant is flawed, prosecutors may argue officers relied on it in good faith.
Other digital evidence	Location data often connects with phone extractions, tower records, surveillance video, and app data.

What prosecutors may argue

Prosecutors may argue the warrant was narrow because it covered a short time and a defined area. They may also argue officers acted in good faith because a judge signed the warrant.

The defense response depends on the facts. A short time window can still reveal private movement. A small radius can still include homes, churches, medical offices, or unrelated businesses. And good faith should not become a free pass for broad digital searches.

What the defense should examine

The defense should obtain the warrant application, affidavit, return, Google production records, narrowing communications, maps, timestamps, accuracy data, and any follow-up investigative steps.

How large was the geofence?
How long was the time window?
How many devices were captured?
Were innocent locations included?
Did police have probable cause for the people identified?
Was the final suspect selected by evidence or by assumption?

Common mistakes defendants make

The biggest mistake is explaining location data to police without counsel. People try to “clear it up” and end up giving the State admissions that fill gaps in the warrant evidence.

The second mistake is assuming digital evidence cannot be challenged. Chatrie proves that constitutional rules still apply in the digital age.

What this case does not mean

A single appellate decision rarely answers every question a defendant may have. This article is not saying that every similar charge must be dismissed, that every warrant is invalid, or that every conviction can be reversed. Criminal cases turn on the facts, the wording of the statute, the quality of the State’s proof, the objections preserved in the record, and the judge hearing the issue.

The better way to use this decision is as a checklist. It identifies pressure points the defense should investigate before accepting the State’s version of events. In some cases, those pressure points may support a motion to suppress, a trial defense, a better plea posture, or an appeal. In other cases, they may simply help the client understand the real risk and make a smarter decision.

Practical next steps if this issue appears in your case

Do not explain the facts to police, agents, probation, or investigators without counsel.
Save every court notice, bond condition, warrant, police report, lab report, video link, phone extraction notice, and discovery document you receive.
Write down a private timeline for your lawyer while events are fresh, but do not post about the case online or text witnesses about what happened.
Ask your lawyer whether the issue affects suppression, trial strategy, plea negotiations, sentencing exposure, or appeal preservation.
Move quickly. Deadlines in criminal cases can affect license rights, discovery, objections, appeal rights, and the ability to preserve helpful evidence.

Questions to ask your defense lawyer

What exactly does the State have to prove on this charge or enhancement?
Which facts are actually disputed, and which facts are only legally important if we preserve the right objection?
Are there search, seizure, disclosure, confrontation, plea, sentencing, or constitutional issues that need to be raised before trial or sentencing?
What evidence do we still need from the State, the lab, a digital provider, probation, or law enforcement?
If the case cannot be dismissed early, how does this issue affect trial risk and negotiation leverage?

Related Napier Law resources

Contact The Napier Law Firm today for a free consultation. Call us at (713) 840-3227 or fill out our online form. We serve clients throughout Houston, The Woodlands, Conroe, and surrounding areas in Harris, Montgomery, and Fort Bend counties.