Chatrie v. United States · ¶57

In Carpenter, however, the Court rejected the Government’s contention that the third-party doctrine likewise governed the acquisition of CSLI. The Court acknowledged that a cell-phone user “continuously reveals his location” to a third-party wireless carrier. 585 U. S., at 309. But it held that cell-phone location information is “qualitatively different” from “telephone numbers and bank records.” Ibid. Those differences fell along two axes. First, the Court explained, the “nature” of CSLI is incomparably “revealing.” Id., at 314. There is “a world of difference” between the “exhaustive chronicle of location information casually collected by wireless carriers” and “the limited types of personal information addressed in Smith and Miller.” Ibid. The former thus “implicates privacy concerns far beyond” the latter. Id., at 315. And second, the Court continued, “[c]ell phone location…

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