The Supreme Court’s decision in Carpenter v. United States has lots of new directions in it. One direction that some commentators have focused on is its impact on the law of subpoenas.
Latest in Fourth Amendment
On Friday, June 22, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated opinion in Carpenter v. United States, holding that a warrant is required for police to access cell site location information from a cell phone company—the detailed geolocation information generated by a cellphone’s communication with cell towers.
The Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited decision in Carpenter v. United States. The opinion is only an hour old as I start to write this, but I wanted to offer some initial thoughts that I will also cross-post at The Volokh Conspiracy.
I'll do it in the form of a question-and-answer session, asking questions you may have and offering answers as best I can. Also, rather than wait to the end and post all of my thoughts at once, I will add to this post throughout the day.
Document: Supreme Court Rules in Carpenter that Law Enforcement Must Seek Warrant for Cell-Site Location Information
The Supreme Court ruled on Friday in Carpenter v. United States that the acquisition of cell-site data is a Fourth Amendment search. The full opinion is below.
More and more federal courts are confronting the question whether the government’s traditional authority to search persons and property at the border—without a warrant, and typically without any degree of individualized suspicion—extends to travelers’ electronic devices.
Summary: Fourth Circuit Rejects Suspicionless, Forensic Searches of Devices at the Border in United States v. Kolsuz
When the Supreme Court rejected warrantless cell phone searches incident to arrest in Riley v.
It seems likely that the House Intelligence Committee will soon #ReleaseTheMemo. According to press reports, the memo claims that the FISA application to monitor Trump campaign advisor Carter Page included information sourced from former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele "without adequately explaining to the judge that Democrats financed Mr. Steele’s research."
The Best Way to Rule for Carpenter (Or, How to Expand Fourth Amendment Protections Without Making A Mess)
Last month, the Supreme Court held argument in Carpenter v. United States, the pending case on whether the Fourth Amendment protects cell-site records. There seemed to be at least five votes sympathetic to ruling for Carpenter. At the same time, there was very little agreement about how to get there. What line should the Court draw, and based on what rationale? No clear answers emerged.
There has been a lot of buzz the past couple of days about claims by Kory Langhofer, counsel for Trump for America, that Robert Mueller's investigators wrongfully obtained copies of the presidential transition team's emails. One of the claims in Langhofer's letter is that the access violated the Fourth Amendment. I haven't seen a substantial legal analysis of this issue yet, so I thought I would try one.
The Supreme Court held oral argument this morning in Carpenter v. United States. Here's my take from the courthouse steps afterwards: