Chatrie v. United States · ¶49
But to begin, the Government is wrong about the incapacity of short-term location information to reveal private matters. “[R]epeated patterns,” in the Government’s phrasing, are not all that individuals wish to, and reasonably expect to, keep to themselves. Brief for United States 20. Return here to another of Jones’s insights: “[E]ven short-term monitoring” of a person’s physical movements can provide “a wealth of detail about [his] familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.” 565 U. S., at 415 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). Consider just a few trips that a person is apt to think “indisputably private”: to “the psychiatrist, the plastic surgeon, the abortion clinic, the AIDS treatment center, the strip club, the criminal defense attorney, [or] the by-the-hour motel.” Ibid. And unlike a GPS device, Location History enables police officers to focus on precisely…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.