Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
Page Number: 34.0

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

7 

KENNEDY, J., dissenting 

papers,  and  effects,  against  unreasonable  searches  and 
seizures, shall not be violated.”  The customary beginning
point  in  any  Fourth  Amendment  search  case  is  whether 
the  Government’s  actions  constitute  a  “search”  of  the 
defendant’s  person,  house,  papers,  or  effects,  within  the
meaning  of  the  constitutional  provision.    If  so,  the  next 
question is whether that search was reasonable.

Here  the  only  question  necessary  to  decide  is  whether
the Government searched anything of Carpenter’s when it
used  compulsory  process  to  obtain  cell-site  records  from
Carpenter’s  cell  phone  service  providers.    This  Court’s 
decisions  in  Miller  and  Smith  dictate  that  the  answer  is 
no, as every Court of Appeals to have considered the ques-
tion has recognized.  See United  States  v.  Thompson, 866 
F. 3d  1149  (CA10  2017);  United  States  v.  Graham,  824 
F. 3d  421  (CA4  2016)  (en  banc);  Carpenter  v.  United 
States,  819  F. 3d  880  (CA6  2016);  United  States  v.  Davis, 
785  F. 3d  498  (CA11  2015)  (en  banc);  In re  Application 
of  U. S.  for  Historical  Cell  Site  Data,  724  F. 3d  600 
(CA5 2013). 

A 
Miller and Smith hold that individuals lack any protected 
Fourth  Amendment  interests  in  records  that  are  pos-
sessed,  owned,  and  controlled  only  by  a  third  party.    In 
Miller  federal  law  enforcement  officers  obtained  four 
months  of  the  defendant’s  banking  records.    425  U. S.,  at 
437438.  And  in  Smith  state  police  obtained  records  of 
the  phone  numbers  dialed  from  the  defendant’s  home
phone.  442  U. S.,  at  737.    The  Court  held  in  both  cases 
that  the  officers  did  not  search  anything  belonging  to  the 
defendants within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
The  defendants  could  “assert  neither  ownership  nor  pos-
session”  of  the  records  because  the  records  were  created, 
owned, and controlled by the companies.  Miller, supra, at 
440; see Smith, supra, at 741.  And the defendants had no