Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
Page Number: 51.0

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

1 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 16–402 
_________________ 

TIMOTHY IVORY CARPENTER, PETITIONER v.
 
UNITED STATES
 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
 

[June 22, 2018] 

JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting. 
This  case  should  not  turn  on  “whether”  a  search  oc­
curred.  Ante,  at  1.    It  should  turn,  instead,  on  whose 
property  was  searched.    The  Fourth  Amendment  guaran­
tees  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.

The  Court  concludes  that,  although  the  records  are  not
Carpenter’s, the Government must get a warrant because
Carpenter had a reasonable “expectation of privacy” in the 
location information that they reveal.  Ante, at 11.  I agree
with  JUSTICE  KENNEDY,  JUSTICE  ALITO,  JUSTICE 
GORSUCH,  and  every  Court  of  Appeals  to  consider  the
question  that  this  is  not  the  best  reading  of  our 
precedents.