Chatrie v. United States · ¶141

Carpenter did not require the police to obtain a warrant for the geofence procedure here. By its own terms, Carpen ter’s holding was keyed to the “unique nature” of the cell- site records in that case. Id., at 309, 315. Carpenter expressly left open the question whether the police would need a warrant for location data spanning less than a week, as is the case with the data here. Id., at 310, n. 3. Carpen ter likewise declined to address situations where the police request information about all devices in a given area at the time of a crime (e.g., a geofence procedure), as opposed to continuous location information about one specific device. Id., at 316. For this reason alone, Carpenter does not dictate an outcome here. Nor does Carpenter’s reasoning justify extending its holding to this case. Here, the police requested two pieces of information that could implicate Chatrie’s Fourth…

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