Chatrie v. United States · ¶41

The Court began its analysis by reviewing what it had said about a different way of tracking “physical location and movements”: the use of a GPS device to monitor a vehicle. Id., at 306. In United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. 400, five Justices had agreed that such tracking counts as a Fourth Amendment search because “individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements.” Carpenter, 585 U. S., at 310; see Jones, 565 U. S., at 430 (ALITO, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 415 (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring). That made sense, the Car penter Court thought, even though the movements occurred in public. Prior to the digital age, pursuing a suspect “for any extended period of time was difficult and costly and therefore rarely undertaken.” 585 U. S., at 310 (quoting Jones, 565 U. S., at 429 (opinion of ALITO, J.)). As a result, “society’s expectation has…

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