
Carpenter v. United States, the 2018 Supreme Court opinion that requires the police to obtain a warrant to access an individual’s historical whereabouts from the records of a cell phone provider, is the most important Fourth Amendment opinion in decades. Although many have acknowledged some of the ways the opinion has changed the doctrine of Constitutional privacy, the importance of Carpenter has not yet been fully appreciated. Carpenter works many revolutions in the law, not only through its holding and new rule, but in more fundamental respects. The opinion reinvents the reasonable expectation of privacy test as it applies to large databases of information about individuals. It turns the third-party doctrine inside out, requiring judges to scrutinize the products of purely private decisions. In dicta, it announces a new rule of technological equivalence, which might end up covering more police activity than the core rule. Finally, it embraces technological exceptionalism as a centerpiece for the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, rejecting backwards-looking interdisciplinary methods such as legal history or surveys of popular attitudes. Considering all of these revolutions, Carpenter is the most important Fourth Amendment decision since Katz v. United States, a case it might end up rivaling in influence.
LawArXiv|Law|Criminal Procedure, bepress|Law|Science and Technology Law, bepress|Law|Criminal Procedure, LawArXiv|Law, bepress|Law|Privacy Law, LawArXiv|Law|Science and Technology Law, bepress|Law, LawArXiv|Law|Fourth Amendment, LawArXiv|Law|Privacy Law, bepress|Law|Fourth Amendment, LawArXiv|Law|Internet Law, bepress|Law|Internet Law, bepress|Law|Computer Law, LawArXiv|Law|Computer Law
LawArXiv|Law|Criminal Procedure, bepress|Law|Science and Technology Law, bepress|Law|Criminal Procedure, LawArXiv|Law, bepress|Law|Privacy Law, LawArXiv|Law|Science and Technology Law, bepress|Law, LawArXiv|Law|Fourth Amendment, LawArXiv|Law|Privacy Law, bepress|Law|Fourth Amendment, LawArXiv|Law|Internet Law, bepress|Law|Internet Law, bepress|Law|Computer Law, LawArXiv|Law|Computer Law
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
