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.”
Agreed. One really needs to read the opinion of Justice Gorsuch as well. President Trump really did pick a good one.
I disagree with Thomas. Even if the records were collected and “belong” to someone else, I do think it is important to have search warrant before accessing. There are so many collections of our data which we are not aware of that should be respected. Your car tracks you, the road toll pass, the bank ATM (which you used, the pic of you showing your attire and if anyone with you, etc.), your online activity (bet there are plenty of tracking records about which site you have visited, pages, and so forth, much beyond Google and despite any blocking programs you might install). We should be protected and respected in all.
This sounds like a fascinating case, and I think Justice Thomas applies the law correctly.
I am a cyber security professional. I agree 100 percent with Justice Thomas. Your cell meta data is not yours, it is the carrier’s. I believe that the owner of the data has the right to decide to request a warrant or not.
However
If the carrier wants to roll over and let the LEO community come in and search their database, then the customer should be made aware of that policy and the customer can decide if they wish to continue their service or go with a more “secure” provider.
IOW, let the marketplace decide
That logic means my medical records don’t belong to me either.
Constitutional, limited government conservatism is lost in this argument as is the argument for secure borders.
How did they know his location?
“Once again, Justice Thomas’ dissenting opinion is clear and to the point...”
Oh, I agree with Thomas that the records belong to the phone companies. But when he correctly establishes who owns those records he failed to require that law enforcement obtain a warrant before seizing the private property and records of the phone companies.
A warrant is still required because the rights of the phone companies are not diminished simply because they are a company.
right to be secure from unreasonable searches of “their persons
I believe that it is an unreasonable search of my person when the government uses my phone records to track my whereabouts on a moment to moment basis in perpetuity.
That has nothing to do with the phone itself. It is me, my body for which they are searching.
Also short-sighted in today's world. Normally I agree with Thomas, but he's not reliable when the government's ability to fully implement its police state is at stake.
Thomas is in the wrong here. By his ruling, there could not be an expectation of privacy in “letters” either.
Except I wholly disagree, by being a customer of MetroPCS, he did create the records. If he didn’t have a cell phone with that company it wouldn’t exist.
“One again, Justice Thomas’ dissenting opinion is clear and to the point:”
Justice Thomas makes a compelling argument but couldn’t his argument to be used to search ones safety deposit box because it is kept in a 3rd party’s property? Just one example and I think the SC ruled correctly but it is a close one.