Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
Page Number: 47

20 

CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES 

KENNEDY, J., dissenting 

C 
The  Court  says  its  decision  is  a  “narrow  one.”    Ante,  at 
17.  But its reinterpretation of Miller and Smith will have 
dramatic  consequences  for  law  enforcement,  courts,  and 
society as a whole.

Most  immediately,  the  Court’s  holding  that  the  Gov-
ernment must get a warrant to obtain more than six days
of cell-site records limits the effectiveness of an important
investigative  tool  for  solving  serious  crimes.  As  this  case 
demonstrates, cell-site records are uniquely suited to help 
the  Government  develop  probable  cause  to  apprehend 
some  of  the  Nation’s  most  dangerous  criminals:  serial
killers, rapists, arsonists, robbers, and so forth.  See also, 
e.g.,  Davis,  785  F. 3d,  at  500501  (armed  robbers);  Brief 
for  Alabama  et al.  as  Amici  Curiae  2122  (serial  killer). 
These records often are indispensable at the initial stages
of investigations when the Government lacks the evidence 
necessary to obtain a warrant.  See United States v. Pem-
brook, 876 F. 3d 812, 816819 (CA6 2017).  And the long-
term  nature  of  many  serious  crimes,  including  serial 
crimes  and  terrorism  offenses,  can  necessitate  the  use  of 
significantly  more  than  six  days  of  cell-site  records.    The 
Court’s  arbitrary  6-day  cutoff  has  the  perverse  effect
of  nullifying  Congress’  reasonable  framework  for  obtain- 
ing  cell-site  records  in  some  of  the  most  serious  criminal
investigations.

The  Court’s  decision  also  will  have  ramifications  that 
extend  beyond  cell-site  records  to  other  kinds  of  infor-
mation  held  by  third  parties,  yet  the  Court  fails  “to  pro-
vide clear guidance to law enforcement” and courts on key
issues  raised  by  its  reinterpretation  of  Miller  and  Smith. 
Riley  v.  California,  573  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2014)  (slip  op., 
at 22). 

First, the Court’s holding is premised on cell-site records
being a “distinct category of information” from other busi-