We can work on Carpenter v. United States

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is a limitation on both state and federal government power to make arrests, search people and their property, and seize objects and contraband, such as illegal drugs or weapons. These policy limits are the bedrock of search and seizure law and are ultimately at the root of your right to privacy.

Preparation
Analyze the following U.S. Supreme Court case:

Carpenter v. United States [PDF] Download Carpenter v. United States [PDF].
Review the following Case Brief Example:

Riley v. California [DOCX].Download Riley v. California [DOCX].
Instructions
Complete the Limitations of the Fourth Amendment Template [DOCX] Download Limitations of the Fourth Amendment Template [DOCX] in which you:

Prepare a two-page case brief of Carpenter v. United States and the Supreme Court’s extension of Fourth Amendment protection to cell phones and locations.
Use the Riley v. California [DOCX], in the Preparation section, as an example.
Explain the dissenting opinions of Justices Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy, including your understanding of their arguments and whether the arguments are valid.
Support your writing with at least three credible, relevant, and appropriate academic sources.
Write in an articulate and well-organized manner that is grammatically correct and free of spelling, typographical, formatting, and/or punctuation errors.

find the cost of your paper
facebookShare on Facebook

TwitterTweet

FollowFollow us

Sample Answer

 

 

 

Limitations of the Fourth Amendment Template

Case Brief: Carpenter v. United States

Citation: Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___ (2018)  

Facts:

Timothy Carpenter was convicted of robbery. A key piece of evidence used against him was cell-site location information (CSLI) obtained by the government from Carpenter’s wireless carriers. This CSLI, which tracked Carpenter’s location over 127 days, was obtained without a warrant; the government had only obtained court orders under the Stored Communications Act, which requires a lower standard than probable cause. Carpenter argued that obtaining his CSLI without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights.  

Issue:

Does the warrantless acquisition of cell-site location information (CSLI) revealing the location of a cell phone user over an extended period of time violate the Fourth Amendment?

Holding:

Yes. The Supreme Court held that the government’s acquisition of Carpenter’s CSLI was a search and violated the Fourth Amendment because it was conducted without a warrant supported by probable cause.  

Reasoning:

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized that CSLI provides an intimate window into a person’s life, revealing not just where they were, but also their associations and activities. The Court distinguished CSLI from traditional forms of evidence, such as bank records or phone call logs, noting the unique nature of cell phones as “a pervasive and insistent part of daily life” and their ability to generate a detailed and comprehensive record of a person’s movements. The Court applied the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test from Katz v. United States, finding that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their physical location as tracked through CSLI. The Court rejected the government’s argument that the third-party doctrine applied, finding that CSLI is fundamentally different from information voluntarily shared with a third party, as cell phone users do not voluntarily expose their location data to their carriers in the same way they might share other information. The Court made clear that its ruling was narrow, addressing only the acquisition of CSLI and not other business records or real-time CSLI.

Full Answer Section

 

 

 

 

Supreme Court’s Extension of Fourth Amendment Protection:

  • The Carpenter decision extended Fourth Amendment protection to cell phone location data, recognizing that this data is qualitatively different from other types of business records.
  • The ruling acknowledges the significant privacy implications of CSLI and requires the government to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before accessing it.  

  • This case adapts Fourth Amendment principles to the digital age, recognizing the unique capabilities of modern technology to track and reveal personal information.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Kennedy:

Justice Kennedy argued that the Stored Communications Act provided adequate protection and that the CSLI was obtained from a third party (the phone company), thus falling under the third-party doctrine. He believed the majority’s decision created uncertainty about the application of the third-party doctrine in other contexts. I find this argument less valid because it fails to recognize the involuntary nature of sharing CSLI with phone companies as a condition of using a cell phone in modern society.  

Justice Thomas:

Justice Thomas argued that the Fourth Amendment protects tangible property and that CSLI, being intangible data held by a third party, does not constitute a “search” of Carpenter’s papers or effects. He adhered to a strict originalist interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. I find this argument unconvincing in the modern context. The Fourth Amendment’s core principle is to protect privacy, and a rigid focus on tangible property ignores the reality of how deeply revealing digital data can be.

Justice Alito:

Justice Alito also emphasized the third-party doctrine, arguing that Carpenter voluntarily shared his location information with his wireless carrier. He suggested that Congress was better suited to address the issue through legislation. While legislative action is important, I believe the Court was correct to address the issue, as the Fourth Amendment is a fundamental protection against government intrusion. Waiting for Congress might have left this privacy issue unresolved for too long.

Justice Gorsuch:

Justice Gorsuch offered a different dissenting argument, focusing on the idea of “property” in information. He suggested that Carpenter had a possessory interest in his CSLI, and the government’s acquisition of it constituted a trespass. This is an interesting argument, and while it differs from the majority’s reasoning, it also acknowledges the privacy implications of CSLI.

Validity of Dissenting Arguments

While the dissenting justices raised valid points about the third-party doctrine, the original intent of the Fourth Amendment, and the role of Congress, the majority’s decision in Carpenter is ultimately more persuasive. The majority recognized the unique privacy implications of CSLI in the digital age and appropriately extended Fourth Amendment protections to this type of data. The dissenting arguments, while grounded in legal precedent, did not fully account for the transformative impact of technology on privacy expectations.

References

  1. Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___ (2018).  

  2. Kerr, Orin S. “The Mosaic Theory of the Fourth Amendment.” Harvard Law Review 111, no. 5 (1998): 1121-1180.
  3. Sklansky, David A. “The Fourth Amendment and the Future of Federal Criminal Law.” Columbia Law Review 124, no. 6 (2024): 2085-2157.
  4. Greenleaf, Graham. “Global data privacy laws: 2024 update: 153 jurisdictions with comprehensive laws.” Privacy Laws & Business International Report 184 (2024): 6-9.

This information should allow you to complete the template. Let me know if you have any other questions.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer

Is this question part of your Assignment?

We can help

Our aim is to help you get A+ grades on your Coursework.

We handle assignments in a multiplicity of subject areas including Admission Essays, General Essays, Case Studies, Coursework, Dissertations, Editing, Research Papers, and Research proposals

Header Button Label: Get Started NowGet Started Header Button Label: View writing samplesView writing samples

Custom Written Work

Guaranteed on Time

Achieve the Grade You ordered