Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
Page Number: 48.0

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

21 

KENNEDY, J., dissenting 

ness records.  Ante, at 15.  But the Court does not explain 
what makes something a distinct category of information. 
Whether  credit  card  records  are  distinct  from  bank  rec-
ords; whether payment records from digital wallet applica-
tions are distinct from either; whether the electronic bank 
records  available  today  are  distinct  from  the  paper  and 
microfilm records at issue in Miller; or whether cell-phone
call records are distinct from the home-phone call records
at issue in Smith, are just a few of the difficult questions 
that require answers under the Court’s novel conception of 
Miller and Smith. 

Second,  the  majority  opinion  gives  courts  and  law  en-
forcement officers no indication how to determine whether 
any  particular  category  of  information  falls  on  the  finan-
cial-records  side  or  the  cell-site-records  side  of  its  newly 
conceived  constitutional  line.  The  Court’s  multifactor 
analysis—considering  intimacy,  comprehensiveness,  ex-
pense, retrospectivity, and voluntariness—puts the law on
a new and unstable foundation. 

Third,  even  if  a  distinct  category  of  information  is
deemed  to  be  more  like  cell-site  records  than  financial 
records,  courts  and  law  enforcement  officers  will  have  to 
guess  how  much  of  that  information  can  be  requested
before a warrant is required.  The Court suggests that less 
than seven days of location information may not require a 
warrant.    See  ante,  at  11,  n. 3;  see  also  ante,  at  1718 
(expressing no opinion on “real-time CSLI,” tower dumps,
and  security-camera  footage).    But  the  Court  does  not 
explain  why  that  is  so,  and  nothing  in  its  opinion  even 
alludes  to  the  considerations  that  should  determine 
whether  greater  or  lesser  thresholds  should  apply  to  in-
formation like IP addresses or website browsing history. 

Fourth,  by  invalidating  the  Government’s  use  of  court-
approved  compulsory  process  in  this  case,  the  Court  calls
into  question  the  subpoena  practices  of  federal  and  state 
grand  juries,  legislatures,  and  other  investigative  bodies,