Chatrie v. United States · ¶132

Similarly, even after Katz, the Court recognized that legislatures still bore primary responsibility for regulating the use of new technologies and investigation methods. Thus, when legislatures developed reasonable schemes to administer such activities, the Court was reluctant to constitutionalize additional rules. See, e.g., Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco, 387 U. S. 523, 534–539 (1967) (upholding the constitutionality of a search conducted pursuant to “reasonable legislative or administrative standards”); King, 569 U. S., at 465 (holding that a DNA collection scheme was constitutional in part because state statute regulated how records could be used); see also Burger, 482 U. S., at 707–711 (allowing warrantless inspections pursuant to a regulatory scheme designed to combat modern problems with car theft). As much as Katz reflected a departure from…

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