Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
Page Number: 39

12 

CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES 

KENNEDY, J., dissenting 

Miller and Smith, the Government may not use compulsory 
process to acquire cell-site records from cell phone service
providers.

There  is  no  merit  in  this  argument.    Cell-site  records, 
like  all  the  examples  just  discussed,  are  created,  kept, 
classified,  owned,  and  controlled  by  cell  phone  service
providers,  which  aggregate  and  sell  this  information  to 
third parties.  As in Miller, Carpenter can “assert neither
ownership  nor  possession”  of  the  records  and  has  no  con-
trol over them.  425 U. S., at 440. 

Carpenter argues that he has Fourth Amendment inter-
ests in the cell-site records because they are in essence his
personal  papers  by  operation  of  47  U. S. C.  §222.  That 
statute imposes certain restrictions on how providers may
use  “customer  proprietary  network  information”—a  term 
that  encompasses  cell-site  records.    §§222(c),  (h)(1)(A).
The statute in general prohibits providers from disclosing
personally  identifiable  cell-site  records  to  private  third
parties.  §222(c)(1).  And  it  allows  customers  to  request
cell-site records from the provider.  §222(c)(2).

Carpenter’s  argument  is  unpersuasive,  however,  for 
§222 does not grant cell phone customers any meaningful
interest  in  cell-site  records.  The  statute’s  confidentiality 
protections  may  be  overridden  by  the  interests  of  the 
providers or the Government.  The providers may disclose
the  records  “to  protect  the[ir]  rights  or  property”  or  to
“initiate,  render,  bill,  and  collect  for  telecommunications 
services.”  §§222(d)(1),  (2).  They  also  may  disclose  the 
records “as required by law”—which, of course, is how they
were disclosed in this case.  §222(c)(1).  Nor does the stat-
ute  provide  customers  any  practical  control  over  the  rec-
ords.  Customers  do  not  create  the  records;  they  have  no
say in whether or for how long the records are stored; and
they  cannot  require  the  records  to  be  modified  or  de-
stroyed.  Even their right to request access to the records
is limited, for the statute “does not preclude a carrier from