Chatrie v. United States · ¶87

If Katz has become a familiar feature of our law, it seems to me no more persuasive for it. Consider just a few of its problems, beginning with this: It has no basis in the Constitution’s text or history. The Fourth Amendment’s protections do not depend on “the breach of some abstract ‘expectation of privacy’ whose contours are left to the judicial imagination.” Carpenter v. United States, 585 U. S. 296, 391 (2018) (GORSUCH, J., dissenting). Instead, the Fourth Amendment speaks in more concrete terms, protecting an individual’s person, house, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures. Ibid. No surprise, then, that it’s hard to find anything like the Katz test in the law leading up to the Fourth Amendment’s adoption—or anything much like it in this Court’s jurisprudence before the 1960s. See Carpenter, 585 U. S., at 391–392 (GORSUCH, J., dissenting).

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