Carpenter: Roberts and Kennedy split over police access to cellphone location records
In Carpenter v. United States, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a five-to-four majority that the government generally needs a warrant for historical cellphone location records. Justice Anthony Kennedy dissented, arguing the records belonged to the carriers as business records.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
The government obtained historical carrier records under the Stored Communications Act without a probable-cause warrant. Roberts's majority treats the acquisition as a search. Kennedy's dissent applies the rule governing carriers' business records. The decision is limited and recognizes exceptions; it does not establish one rule for every location technique or third-party record. Thomas and Alito join Kennedy's dissent and also write separately; Gorsuch files another dissent.
People in this case
John RobertsDirectly involved
Anthony M. KennedyDirectly involved
Timeline
1 timeline entry on this page. Dates: June 22, 2018
June 2018
Supreme Court rules for Carpenter on the search question
The five-to-four decision treats acquisition of historical cell-site records as a search and generally requires a warrant. Kennedy dissents.
[01]Supreme Court of the United States
Source excerpt
It is sufficient for our purposes today to hold that accessing seven days of CSLI constitutes a Fourth Amendment search.
The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision of June 22, 2018, written by Chief Justice Roberts, holding that the government's acquisition of historical cell-site location records from wireless carriers was a Fourth Amendment search that generally requires a warrant. The Court said individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements, called its decision narrow, and said it did not call into question conventional surveillance techniques and tools such as security cameras. It does not address license-plate readers.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), No. 16-402, opinion of the Court · Supreme Court of the United States
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
Obtaining carriers' historical cell-site business records does not search the customer for Fourth Amendment purposes.
Sources (1)
- Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), No. 16-402, opinion of the Court · Supreme Court of the United States
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
2 matching responses. Newest first.
John RobertsChief justice, writing the Supreme Court majority opinionDirectly involvedBefore this statement
The government obtained historical location records using statutory court orders without a probable-cause warrant.
"Given the unique nature of cell phone location records, the fact that the information is held by a third party does not by itself overcome the user’s claim to Fourth Amendment protection."
CondemnedResponding to: Obtaining carriers' historical cell-site business records does not search the customer for Fourth Amendment purposes.
Full statement and sources
Roberts rejects treating the carrier's possession of location records as sufficient to eliminate the customer's Fourth Amendment protection.
After the statement
The majority generally requires a warrant for this acquisition while recognizing case-specific exceptions.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), No. 16-402, opinion of the Court · Supreme Court of the United StatesWhy this label?
The subject is warrantless acquisition of Carpenter's location records. Roberts's majority reasoning rejects the government's argument that carrier possession removes Fourth Amendment protection. This is legal criticism of the acquisition, not a personal denunciation.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Anthony M. KennedySupreme Court justice, dissentingDirectly involvedBefore this statement
Kennedy disagrees with the majority's treatment of historical cell-site records.
"The Court has twice held that individuals have no Fourth Amendment interests in business records which are possessed, owned, and controlled by a third party. United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435 (1976); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735 (1979). This is true even when the records contain personal and sensitive information."
Defended or excusedResponding to: Obtaining carriers' historical cell-site business records does not search the customer for Fourth Amendment purposes.
Full statement and sources
Kennedy argues that compelling a carrier's own business records does not search the customer.
After the statement
Thomas and Alito join Kennedy's dissent. It applies third-party business-record precedents; the majority emphasizes the sensitivity of location histories. Other justices file separate dissents.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), No. 16-402, opinion of the Court · Supreme Court of the United StatesWhy this label?
The subject is government acquisition of Carpenter's historical cell-site records without a probable-cause warrant. Kennedy argues that compelling a carrier's own business records does not search the customer.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(1)
Original text
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), No. 16-402, opinion of the Court
Excerpt
"It is sufficient for our purposes today to hold that accessing seven days of CSLI constitutes a Fourth Amendment search."
About this source
The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision of June 22, 2018, written by Chief Justice Roberts, holding that the government's acquisition of historical cell-site location records from wireless carriers was a Fourth Amendment search that generally requires a warrant. The Court said individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements, called its decision narrow, and said it did not call into question conventional surveillance techniques and tools such as security cameras. It does not address license-plate readers.
- Author
- Chief Justice John Roberts
- Published
- Accessed
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Carpenter: Roberts and Kennedy split over police access to cellphone location records
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/carpenter-cellphone-location-records-roberts-kennedy-warrant
The Dispute Index. "Carpenter: Roberts and Kennedy split over police access to cellphone location records". First published: 2026-10-23. Last updated: 2026-10-23. https://disputeindex.com/cases/carpenter-cellphone-location-records-roberts-kennedy-warrant