Chatrie v. United States · ¶58

Both differentiating features highlighted in Carpenter apply equally or better to Location History. As noted above, Location History is even more “revealing” than CSLI, because it provides a yet more precise record of an individual’s movements. See supra, at 16–17. Access to that record enables officials to undertake nearly perfect, retrospective surveillance of countless persons and places. See supra, at 17–18. And for Location History, that surveillance is based on information that a user reasonably understands as his own, even though stored on Google’s servers—much like his emails, photos, and calendar entries. See supra, at 18. Likewise, the information is “not truly shared,” in the normal sense of wanting a third party to see or use it. Car penter, 585 U. S., at 315. The exposure of that information to Google is merely what happens when a user avails himself of one of the services…

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