Chatrie v. United States · ¶94

Rather than employ Katz and its third party doctrine, I would take a different approach. To decide whether the Fourth Amendment is in play, I would consult its terms, asking first whether Location History qualifies as one of Mr. Chatrie’s papers or effects, and then asking whether the government searched those papers or effects. This traditional approach remains very much part of our law. See Byrd v. United States, 584 U. S. 395, 403 (2018). Indeed, we have expressly recognized that Katz and its progeny “supplemen[t] rather than displac[e]” traditional Fourth Amendment principles. Carpenter, 585 U. S., at 403 (majority opinion); see also Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U. S. 56, 64–65 (1992); United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. 400, 406– 407 (2012); Florida v. Jardines, 569 U. S. 1, 11 (2013).

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