Chatrie v. United States · ¶120
This Court has long been averse to granting certiorari on questions “that time [will] soon bury.” Darr v. Burford, 339 U. S. 200, 227 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). This aversion applies with special force here given this case’s subject matter. The Fourth Amendment’s application to surveillance technology turns on the “unique nature” of the technology involved and the way in which the police use it to collect information. Carpenter, 585 U. S., at 309. For instance, when determining whether law enforcement’s use of a technology requires a warrant or is otherwise “unreasonable,” this Court has considered the technology’s capabilities, prevalence, costliness, conspicuousness, intrusiveness, precision, accuracy, security, and comprehensiveness. See, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 34–35 (2001); United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. 400, 429–431 (2012) (ALITO, J., concurring…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.