Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
Page Number: 87.0

16 

CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

Amendment does not regulate the compelled production of 
documents  at  all.  Here  the  Government  received  the 
relevant cell-site records pursuant to a court order compel-
ling  Carpenter’s  cell  service  provider  to  turn  them  over.
That  process  is  thus  immune  from  challenge  under  the
original understanding of the Fourth Amendment.

As  a  matter  of  modern  doctrine,  this  case  is  equally
straightforward.  As  JUSTICE  KENNEDY  explains,  no
search or seizure of Carpenter or his property occurred in 
this case.  Ante, at 6–22; see also Part II, infra.  But even 
if the majority were right that the Government “searched”
Carpenter,  it  would  at  most  be  a  “figurative  or  construc-
tive  search”  governed  by  the  Oklahoma  Press  standard, 
not  an  “actual  search”  controlled  by  the  Fourth  Amend-
ment’s warrant requirement.

And  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  Government  met  the 
Oklahoma Press standard here.  Under Oklahoma Press, a 
court order must “ ‘be sufficiently limited in scope, relevant 
in purpose, and specific in directive so that compliance will
not  be  unreasonably  burdensome.’ ”    Lone  Steer,  Inc., 
supra,  at  415.    Here,  the  type  of  order  obtained  by  the 
Government  almost  necessarily  satisfies  that  standard. 
The  Stored  Communications  Act  allows  a  court  to  issue 
the  relevant  type of order “only if the governmental entity
offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are 
reasonable  grounds  to  believe  that  . . .  the  records  . . .
sough[t] are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal 
investigation.”  18  U. S. C.  §2703(d).    And  the  court  “may
quash  or  modify  such  order”  if  the  provider  objects  that 
the  “records  requested  are  unusually  voluminous  in  na-
ture or compliance with such order otherwise would cause
an undue burden on such provider.”  Ibid.  No such objec-
tion  was  made  in  this  case,  and  Carpenter  does  not  sug-
gest  that  the  orders  contravened  the  Oklahoma  Press 
standard in any other way.

That  is  what  makes  the  majority’s  opinion  so  puzzling.