Chatrie and Location-Data Demands: Constitutional Objections, Scope, and Compliance Strategy

This session examines the Supreme Court’s June 29, 2026 decision in Chatrie v. United States and its direct implications for third-party data custodians who receive government demands for location data. Attorneys will learn how Chatrie extends Carpenter, why the Court’s “reasonably views as his own” standard shifts compliance obligations for custodians, and what doctrinal tools — Fourth Amendment standing, Stored Communications Act mechanisms, and emerging state property-rights theories — are available to challenge overbroad demands. Attendees will leave with a framework for evaluating each demand’s constitutional sufficiency before compliance and for identifying when to raise particularity, probable-cause, and third-party standing objections.

When a subpoena, 2703(d) order, or geofence warrant for location data lands on a company’s desk, the constitutional question of who may object is only the beginning — someone still has to decide what gets produced, in what order, and where to draw the line. This session takes the custodian’s seat and walks through the operational response: triaging incoming legal process, mapping the demand against the location signals the company actually holds, and building scope objections grounded in overbreadth, particularity, and technical infeasibility. Paul Lanois covers the meet-and-confer letter, staged and anonymized production sequencing, negotiated narrowing of geofence radius and time windows, nondisclosure orders and user notification timing, and the escalation triggers that justify moving to quash or demanding a warrant. He also addresses the cross-border layer — GDPR Article 48, the CLOUD Act, and MLAT sequencing — plus the internal governance, vendor-chain obligations, and data-minimization design choices that reduce exposure before the next demand arrives.