Chatrie v. United States · ¶143

Second, the limited geofence procedure here was far less likely to open “an intimate window” into Chatrie’s “ ‘familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations’” than was the chronicle that the police obtained in Carpenter. Id., at 311. Whereas the procedure in Carpenter gave the police a comprehensive log of the defendant’s movement everywhere he went, the geofence’s boundaries here centered on a credit union, a public place where individuals lack a reasonable expectation of privacy. Cf. Mil ler, 425 U. S., at 442–443 (holding that a person has no expectation of privacy in his dealings with a bank); Knotts, 460 U. S., at 281–282 (holding that a person has no expectation of privacy in his travels through public places). To be sure, the geofence procedure also captured some people’s movements outside the geofence in the hour before and after they visited the credit…

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