Latest in Carpenter v. United States
The Supreme Court was wrong to assume in Carpenter that the government needed a warrant to get the data in question.
Professor Kerr tackles new directions in Fourth Amendment law with two draft chapters from a forthcoming book.
The good-faith exception has washed out cases involving pre-Carpenter searches, but a few courts have extended the ruling’s logic to new types of data.
The decision is an interesting measure of where Fourth Amendment law may go in the post-Carpenter era.
The Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment ruling closed the door on such surveillance of Americans and has implications for reauthorization of the USA Freedom Act next year.
Fourth Amendment law is now a "best guess." After Carpenter, nobody really can say what the law is. That's unfortunate.
There is a lot that is extraordinary and groundbreaking in Carpenter, but the case makes only a small and likely necessary resolution of an unsettled question in the law of subpoenas.
The Supreme Court seems to have understood itself as applying the Fourth Amendment to the 21st century, and in particular to digital network technology of the 21st century—but it left several key questions unanswered.
A review of Lawfare's 2017 coverage of privacy law.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in Carpenter v. United States, a major Fourth Amendment case asking whether a warrant is necessary before law enforcement can obtain cell site data identifying a suspect phone's location from a service provider. Lawfare contributor and Fourth Amendment expert Orin Kerr discussed the case with me at Brookings shortly after the argument.