Location Tracking and Digital Data: Can Carpenter Build a Stable Privacy Doctrine?

  title={Location Tracking and Digital Data: Can Carpenter Build a Stable Privacy Doctrine?},
  author={Evan H. Caminker},
  journal={The Supreme Court Review},
  pages={411 - 481}
In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court struggled to modernize search and seizure law for the digital age. Under longstanding doctrine, government needs only a subpoena rather than search warrant to obtain phone, financial, credit card, and many other types of records from “third party” businesses. And exploding use of the internet and other digital technologies has drastically increased the amount and types of sensitive information stored by third parties that reveal people’s… 



The Positive Law Model of the Fourth Amendment

For fifty years, courts have used a “reasonable expectation of privacy” standard to define “searches” under the Fourth Amendment. As others have recognized, that doctrine is subjective,

The Case for the Third-Party Doctrine

This article offers a defense of the Fourth Amendment's third-party doctrine, the controversial rule that knowingly revealing information to a third party relinquishes Fourth Amendment protection in

Id at 2254 (Alito, J, dissenting)

    For his part, Justice Gorsuch would appear to protect from warrantless subpoenas all records that are "sufficiently similar to letters in the mail

      138 S Ct at 2264 (Gorsuch, J, dissenting)

        -NXUB (Carpenter's potential for "fundamental transformation of national subpoena practices (and other compulsory process practices) remains to be seen

          Id at 2256 (Alito, J, dissenting)

            Id at 2265 (Gorsuch, J, dissenting)

              565 US at 415 (Sotomayor, J, concurring)

                A [first-party] recipient does have Fourth Amendment rights at stake, but he can challenge the subpoena only on the ground that it is overbroad or compliance is overly burdensome