Chatrie v. United States · ¶30

The District Court mainly agreed with Chatrie’s Fourth Amendment analysis, but still denied the motion to exclude the Location History evidence. Even though “this particular geofence warrant plainly violates the rights enshrined in [the Fourth] Amendment,” the court stated, the officers’ reliance on it was not “objectively unreasonable.” 590 F. Supp. 3d, at 905, 938. And because that was so, the court concluded, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule permitted admission of the location data. See id., at 937– 938; United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 922–923 (1984) (establishing good-faith exception).

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.