Chatrie v. United States · ¶150

In support of its sweeping conclusion, the majority argues that a duration-based or procedure-by-procedure approach to the Fourth Amendment would generate a “host of line- drawing questions.” Ante, at 21, n. 9; see also ante, at 27– 28. I do not disagree, but those questions are the inevitable byproduct of the lines that Carpenter drew when it distinguished away longstanding doctrine. See 585 U. S., at 322, 339 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (explaining that Carpenter drew an “unprincipled and unworkable line” and imposed an “arbitrary 6-day cutoff ”). Indeed, the majority’s rejection of such line-drawing only betrays its expansion of Car penter’s holding.

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