Chatrie v. United States · ¶69

The parties have contested the legality of each stage of that process. Chatrie analogizes the first step to an “unconstitutional general warrant,” and argues that in any event the search at that step was both insufficiently described by the warrant and lacking in probable cause. Brief for Chatrie 12; see id., at 13. As to steps two and three, Chatrie contends that the warrant left too much authority to police officers—and too little to the magistrate—to define the search’s scope and determine whether cause for it existed. See id., at 13–14. The Government, for its part, defends the warrant at every step as seeking “particularized information from Google’s database” based on “probable cause to believe that Google had information” that would help solve a crime. Brief for United States 14. And the Government urges that the discretion given to the officers at steps two and three fell within…

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