{"title":"The Many Revolutions of Carpenter","authors":"Paul Ohm","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/bsedj","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Carpenter v. United States, the 2018 Supreme Court opinion that requires the police to obtain a warrant to access an individual’s historical whereabouts from the records of a cell phone provider, is the most important Fourth Amendment opinion in decades. Although many have acknowledged some of the ways the opinion has changed the doctrine of Constitutional privacy, the importance of Carpenter has not yet been fully appreciated. Carpenter works many revolutions in the law, not only through its holding and new rule, but in more fundamental respects. The opinion reinvents the reasonable expectation of privacy test as it applies to large databases of information about individuals. It turns the third-party doctrine inside out, requiring judges to scrutinize the products of purely private decisions. In dicta, it announces a new rule of technological equivalence, which might end up covering more police activity than the core rule. Finally, it embraces technological exceptionalism as a centerpiece for the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, rejecting backwards-looking interdisciplinary methods such as legal history or surveys of popular attitudes. Considering all of these revolutions, Carpenter is the most important Fourth Amendment decision since Katz v. United States, a case it might end up rivaling in influence.","PeriodicalId":81374,"journal":{"name":"Harvard journal of law & technology","volume":"51 1","pages":"357"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harvard journal of law & technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/bsedj","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
Carpenter v. United States, the 2018 Supreme Court opinion that requires the police to obtain a warrant to access an individual’s historical whereabouts from the records of a cell phone provider, is the most important Fourth Amendment opinion in decades. Although many have acknowledged some of the ways the opinion has changed the doctrine of Constitutional privacy, the importance of Carpenter has not yet been fully appreciated. Carpenter works many revolutions in the law, not only through its holding and new rule, but in more fundamental respects. The opinion reinvents the reasonable expectation of privacy test as it applies to large databases of information about individuals. It turns the third-party doctrine inside out, requiring judges to scrutinize the products of purely private decisions. In dicta, it announces a new rule of technological equivalence, which might end up covering more police activity than the core rule. Finally, it embraces technological exceptionalism as a centerpiece for the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, rejecting backwards-looking interdisciplinary methods such as legal history or surveys of popular attitudes. Considering all of these revolutions, Carpenter is the most important Fourth Amendment decision since Katz v. United States, a case it might end up rivaling in influence.
2018年最高法院的“卡彭特诉美国案”(Carpenter v. United States)要求警方获得搜查令,才能从手机提供商的记录中获取个人的历史行踪,这是几十年来第四修正案中最重要的意见。尽管许多人承认,这一判决在某些方面改变了宪法隐私权原则,但卡彭特案的重要性尚未得到充分认识。卡彭特在法律领域掀起了许多革命,不仅是通过法律的确立和新的规则,而且是在更基本的方面。该意见重新定义了隐私测试的合理预期,因为它适用于个人信息的大型数据库。它彻底颠覆了第三方原则,要求法官仔细审查纯粹私人决定的产物。在口头上,它宣布了一项新的技术对等规则,该规则最终可能比核心规则涵盖更多的警察活动。最后,它将技术例外论作为解释第四修正案的核心,拒绝法律史或民意调查等落后的跨学科方法。考虑到所有这些革命,卡彭特案是自卡茨诉美国案(Katz v. United States)以来最重要的第四修正案裁决,它最终可能会在影响力上与之匹敌。