Chatrie v. United States · ¶38

In recent decades, this Court has often confronted the challenge of adhering to those principles in the face of new technologies. “[I]nnovations in surveillance tools” have “enhanced the Government’s capacity to encroach upon areas normally guarded from inquisitive eyes.” Ibid. The Court, in response, has sought to “assure[] preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.” Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 34 (2001). So in one decision, we rejected a “mechanical interpretation” of the Fourth Amendment to hold that the use of a thermal imager to detect heat coming from a person’s home was a search in the constitutional sense. Id., at 35. And in another, we held that the search of a cell phone incident to arrest could not proceed without a warrant (even though the search of a handbag could) because of the phone’s “vast…

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