Court Opinion

ID: 9804257
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 16:35:58.301559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:05:03.707258
License: Public Domain

POLSTON, J.,
dissenting.
I agree with Justice Canady’s dissent based on the third-party disclosure precedent by the United States Supreme Court. However, I believe there is justification for the United States Supreme Court to rule that individuals have a reasonable expectation that their real-time location will not be disclosed, without a search warrant, to law enforcement just by their cell phones being turned on. If that is not the case, we may be facing a situation “in which Katz’ two-pronged inquiry [provides] an inadequate index of Fourth Amendment protection.” Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740 n. 5, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979).