That’s rare. I actually find myself in agreement with the four liberals (and Roberts) who ruled that cell phone location data is protected by the 4th amendment. I wonder what the reasoning was for the conservative wing dissenting?
One again, Justice Thomas’ dissenting opinion is clear and to the point:
“This case should not turn on “whether” a search occurred.
Ante, at 1. It should turn, instead, on whose
property was searched. The Fourth Amendment guarantees
individuals the right to be secure from unreasonable
searches of “their persons, houses, papers, and effects.”
(Emphasis added.) In other words, “each person has the
right to be secure against unreasonable searches . . . in his
own person, house, papers, and effects.” Minnesota v.
Carter, 525 U. S. 83, 92 (1998) (Scalia, J., concurring). By
obtaining the cell-site records of MetroPCS and Sprint, the
Government did not search Carpenter’s property. He did
not create the records, he does not maintain them, he
cannot control them, and he cannot destroy them. Neither
the terms of his contracts nor any provision of law makes
the records his. The records belong to MetroPCS and
Sprint.”
I believe the conservative rationale is that you should have no expectation of privacy and security of information when you are using technology that puts your sensitive/secure information in the hands of a third party anyway.
If this were an exigent circumstance situation, I could probably understand the conservatives’ position. But warrants are exceedingly easy to get, many times at any hour of the day or night. I know, we’ve gotten them in the dead of night before as a law enforcement officer.
It is strange indeed.