Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
Page Number: 28

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

1 

KENNEDY, 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  KENNEDY,  with  whom  JUSTICE  THOMAS  and 

JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting. 

This case involves new technology, but the Court’s stark 
departure  from  relevant  Fourth  Amendment  precedents
and  principles  is,  in  my  submission,  unnecessary  and 
incorrect, requiring this respectful dissent. 

The new rule the Court seems to formulate puts needed,
reasonable,  accepted,  lawful,  and  congressionally  author-
ized  criminal  investigations  at  serious  risk  in  serious
cases,  often  when  law  enforcement  seeks  to  prevent  the 
threat of violent crimes.  And it places undue restrictions
on the lawful and necessary enforcement powers exercised 
not  only  by  the  Federal  Government,  but  also  by  law 
enforcement  in  every  State  and  locality  throughout  the
Nation.  Adherence  to  this  Court’s  longstanding  prece-
dents and analytic framework would have been the proper 
and prudent way to resolve this case. 

The  Court  has  twice  held  that  individuals  have  no 
Fourth  Amendment  interests  in  business  records  which 
are  possessed,  owned,  and  controlled  by  a  third  party. 
United  States  v.  Miller,  425  U. S.  435  (1976);  Smith  v. 
Maryland,  442  U. S.  735  (1979).    This  is  true  even  when 
the records contain personal and sensitive information.  So 
when  the  Government  uses  a  subpoena  to  obtain,  for 
example, bank records, telephone records, and credit card