Loading record
Public disputes concerning personal privacy, private information, unwanted publicity, and the public handling of personal or family matters.
Counts show individual statements. They do not assign an overall position.
2 statements on this page. Dates: June 22, 2018 to June 29, 2026
2 matching statements. Dates: June 22, 2018 to June 29, 2026
2 published statements. Dates: June 22, 2018 to June 29, 2026
2 published statements. Dates: June 22, 2018 to June 29, 2026
2 statements on this page. Dates: June 22, 2018 to June 29, 2026
Role at the time: Associate justice of the Supreme Court, dissenting
Statement summary
Alito argued that sharing location information for Google's own use meant assuming the risk of police disclosure.
“So, by giving Google his location information for its own use, Chatrie assumed the risk that Google might disclose location information to others, including the police.”
The judgment treats acquisition of Location History as a search and remands questions about the warrant's reasonableness. It does not invalidate every geofence warrant or order suppression of the evidence.
The case examines the no-search treatment of voluntarily shared Location History. Alito defends that treatment. His procedural objections do not erase his substantive position on privacy.
Role at the time: Associate justice of the United States Supreme Court
Statement summary
Alito says Carpenter threatens legitimate investigative practices despite its concern for privacy.
“I share the Court’s concern about the effect of new technology on personal privacy, but I fear that today’s decision will do far more harm than good. The Court’s reasoning fractures two fundamental pillars of Fourth Amendment law, and in doing so, it guarantees a blizzard of litigation while threatening many legitimate and valuable investigative practices upon which law enforcement has rightfully come to rely.”
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.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Relative to police obtaining historical cellphone location records without a probable-cause warrant, Alito defends access through court orders and subpoenas. He calls imposing the new warrant requirement a serious mistake and warns that it threatens legitimate investigations.
