Chatrie v. United States · ¶96
I agree with that assessment. Set aside whether Location History data qualifies as among Mr. Chatrie’s “papers,” and consider whether it at least constitutes one of his “effects.” Based on the evidence the parties have put before us, it appears the word “effects” was understood at the time of the Fourth Amendment’s adoption to embrace most any kind of personal property. See, e.g., M. Brady, The Lost “Effects” of the Fourth Amendment: Giving Personal Property Due Protection, 125 Yale L. J. 946, 985–987 (2016) (“[E]arly sources indicate that the term ‘effects’ meant ‘personal property’ in common and colloquial usage”); L. Donohue, The Original Fourth Amendment, 83 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1181, 1301 (2016) (effects meant “personal property or possessions,” including “commercial items and goods”); Brief for United States 32 (suggesting that “effects” excludes certain real property like so-called…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.