Amicus Brief Filed in Carpenter v. United States
Amicus Brief Filed in Carpenter v. United States
Amicus Brief Filed in Carpenter v. United States
16-402
IN THE
___________
QUESTION PRESENTED
Can the government seize and review anyones cell-
site location datawhich reveals all of their move-
ments over extended periodswithout a warrant?
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTION PRESENTED ........................................... i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... iv
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................. 1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF
ARGUMENT ......................................................... 2
ARGUMENT ................................................................ 4
I. THIS COURT SHOULD APPLY THE TERMS
OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN ALL
FOURTH AMENDMENT CASES........................ 4
II. THIS COURT SHOULD ESCHEW THE
UNSOUND REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF
PRIVACY TEST AND OTHER UNHELPFUL
DOCTRINES ......................................................... 8
A. Ex Parte Jackson Properly Protected
Communications in Transit by Protecting
Papers and Effects as Such .............................. 9
B. Olmstead Involved Seizures and Searches
of a Wire and Electronic Papers/Effects ......... 10
C. The Katz Majority Inarticulately Applied
the Fourth Amendments Terms to a
Shrouded Oral Communication ...................... 12
D. The Ills of the Reasonable Expectation of
Privacy Test ................................................... 13
E. Corollaries of the Reasonable Expectation
of Privacy Test Are Even Worse.................... 15
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page(s)
ACLU v. Clapper,
785 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 2015) ................................... 19
Boyd v. United States,
116 U.S. 616 (1886) ................................................ 23
Brendlin v. California,
551 U.S. 249 (2007) .................................................. 6
California Bankers Assn v. Shultz,
416 U.S. 21 (1974) .................................................. 16
Chimel v. California,
395 U.S. 752 (1969) ........................................... 6, 31
Dolan v. City of Tigard,
512 U.S. 374 (1994) ................................................ 25
In re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation,
No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD (N.D. Cal. filed Feb.
8, 2012) .................................................................. 29
Ex Parte Jackson,
96 U.S. 727 (1878) ................................... 8, 9, 10, 12
Horton v. California,
496 U.S. 128 (1990) .................................................. 9
Illinois v. Caballes,
543 U.S. 405 (2005) ................................................ 15
Illinois v. Lafayette,
462 U.S. 640 (1983) .................................................. 7
Kaiser Aetna v. United States,
444 U.S. 164 (1979) ................................................ 25
Katz v. United States,
389 U.S. 347 (1967) ............................ 2, 8, 11, 12-13
v
Statutes
12 U.S.C. 1829b(a)(2) (2000) ................................... 16
18 U.S.C. 2703(d) ....................................... 20, 25, 31
The Bank Secrecy Act, Pub. L. No. 91-508, 84
Stat. 1114 (codified as amended at 12 U.S.C.
195159. (2000)) ................................................ 16
Other Authorities
Blacks Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990) ...................... 26
Federal Trade Commn, Enforcing Privacy
Promises webpage,
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-
resources/protecting-consumer-
privacy/enforcing-privacy-promises....................... 29
Gerald W. Brock, The Second Information
Revolution (2003) ................................................... 10
Jim Harper, Administering the Fourth
Amendment in the Digital Age, Natl Const.
Center ..................................................................... 19
Jim Harper, Escaping Fourth Amendment
Doctrine After Jones: Physics, Law, and
Privacy Protection,
20112012 Cato Sup. Ct. Rev. 219 (2012) .......... 9-10
vii
2Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), was decided on De-
cember 18, 1967.
3
ARGUMENT
I. THIS COURT SHOULD APPLY THE TERMS
OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN ALL
FOURTH AMENDMENT CASES
The first phrase of the Fourth Amendment says,
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated. U.S.
Const., amend. IV. Absent confusing doctrine, courts
would analyze its elements as follows:
Was there a search?
Was there a seizure?
Was any search or seizure of persons, houses,
papers, [or] effects?
5
work. But a detour over the last forty years into rea-
sonable expectations doctrine has undercut sound ad-
ministration of the Fourth Amendment.
A. Ex Parte Jackson Properly Protected
Communications in Transit by Protecting
Papers and Effects as Such
This Court correctly applied the Fourth Amend-
ment to communications in Ex Parte Jackson, 96 U.S.
727 (1878). The opinion did not state in bullet-point
order that the postal mail in question, having been
handed over to the government, was a) searched, b) a
paper or effect, and c) unreasonably searched without
a warrant. But it held that [l]etters and sealed pack-
ages . . . in the mail are as fully guarded from exami-
nation and inspection, except as to their outward form
and weight, as if they were retained by the parties for-
warding them in their own domiciles. Id. at 733.
Mailed items remain the papers and effects of their
owners while in transit, even though they are not in
the possession of their owners. Accessing their con-
tents, such as by opening envelopes, unfolding papers
and such, is a search. Doing those things requires a
warrant.
The outward form and weight of such items, not be-
ing sealed from inspection, are not constitutionally
protected. This was early acknowledgement of the dif-
ference between what we now call plain view and
what might be called plain concealment. It takes no
search to discover what is in plain view, so the Fourth
Amendment is not implicated. See Horton v. Califor-
nia, 496 U.S. 128 (1990). It takes a search to reveal
concealed matter, so the Fourth Amendment pertains.
The issues are put in play by constitutional text and
10
CONCLUSION
Applying the text of the Fourth Amendment to this
case, the Court should reverse the decision below.
Respectfully submitted,
Ilya Shapiro Jim Harper
CATO INSTITUTE Counsel of Record
1000 Mass. Ave. N.W. Ryan C. Radia
Washington, D.C. 20001 COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE
(202) 842-0200 INSTITUTE
ishapiro@cato.org 1310 L St. NW, 7th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Manuel S. Klausner (202) 331-1010
LAW OFFICES OF MANUEL jim.harper@cei.org
S. KLAUSNER
One Bunker Hill Building Curt Levey
601 W. Fifth St., Suite 800 The Committee for Justice
Los Angeles, CA 90071 722 12th St. NW, 4th Floor
(213) 617-0414 Washington, DC 20005
mklausner@klausnerlaw.us (202) 270-7748
clevey@committeeforjus-
August 11, 2017 tice.org