Chatrie v. United States · ¶90

Much as with Katz itself, this Court has never offered a persuasive justification for its offshoot. Carpenter, 585 U. S., at 389–390 (GORSUCH, J., dissenting). Nor do I see how it might. Do we seriously mean to suggest that most Americans think they have no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in records held for them by their banks or pharmacists or doctors or technology companies? If not, on what authority might we rule that the American people should not reasonably expect privacy in materials like those? Really, the third party doctrine amounts to little more than a “doubtful application of Katz that lets the government search almost whatever it wants whenever it wants.” Id., at 391.

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