Chatrie v. United States · ¶125

If the Court were to apply the Fourth Amendment as understood for the first century of this Nation’s history, we would find no “search” of Chatrie’s papers or effects, much less an “unreasonable” one. Until the last decades of the 19th century, the Search and Seizure Clause protected only the physical security of one’s person and property, and document-production orders were not understood to be “searches.” See Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 367– 374 (1967) (Black, J., dissenting); Carpenter, 585 U. S., at 348–357 (THOMAS, J., dissenting); id., at 363–372 (ALITO, J., dissenting). Under those principles, Chatrie’s arguments are meritless.

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