Chatrie v. United States · ¶91

As it did eight years ago in Carpenter, the Court today largely ignores these problems. It simply declares that Mr. Chatrie enjoyed a reasonable expectation of privacy in his Location History because authorities could have used it to create “a virtual panopticon.” Ante, at 21. And it tells us that the third party doctrine does not apply to this case because Mr. Chatrie did “‘not truly shar[e]’” his Location History with Google. Ante, at 25–26 (quoting Carpenter, 585 U. S., at 315 (majority opinion)).

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