Chatrie v. United States · ¶138
Without any support in 19th- or 20th-century understandings of the Fourth Amendment, Chatrie and the majority rely primarily on this Court’s decision in Carpenter. Carpenter held that the police must obtain a warrant before ordering a cellular carrier to provide more than six days of cell-site records about a customer (i.e., information about the specific cell towers to which a cell phone connected). 585 U. S., at 315–316. Like Katz, Carpenter extended the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement to encompass a category of government investigations that it had never previously covered. Before Carpenter, a criminal defendant who objected to police collection of cell-site records would have faced at least two legal hurdles: the historical distinctions between searches and subpoenas duces tecum, and the third-party doctrine. Carpenter, 585 U. S., at 361–362 (ALITO, J., dissenting). Carpenter…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.