Chatrie v. United States · ¶95

Thanks to Katz’s prominence today, of course, litigants sometimes fail to press more traditional Fourth Amendment arguments. See, e.g., Carpenter, 585 U. S., at 406 (GORSUCH, J., dissenting). But whatever his faults (possibly including bank robbery), Mr. Chatrie has not forfeited that line of attack in this case. In fact, he begins his brief before us by contending that the Fourth Amendment is implicated here precisely because the government enlisted Google to search his “papers and effects.” See Brief for Petitioner 15, 33.

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