While I agree with you, I'm going to play Devil's advocate here just to point out what the true problem is.
The problem here is that with the apps that you use and data that you collect on your phone, who truly owns the data? If you upload something to Facebook or to Dropbox that could potentially incriminate you, that 3rd party could be, in the eyes of the law, the owner of that data. Since they aren't directly implicated in the investigation or charges, no warrant would be needed to search them. All that the government would need to do is get a subpoena, and that 3rd party would hand over that data.
That's pretty much the dissenting opinion of Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito. I'm not sure I like it, but I see their point. On the other hand, if I put papers in a safe deposit box at a bank, I'd argue (as, as far as I know, courts would agree with me), this would require a warrant to search. But in that case, I'm handing over the pages to the bank to hold onto; they are still my property. If I upload documents to Dropbox, I'd argue the same principle applies; a warrant is required.
Do I own the data that my phone provided collects while I use their service? While I don't like the implications of saying the provider owns the data, I can make a case for it: I didn't ask them to store data or documents I created, as with the bank safe deposit or Dropbox. Rather, they generate data as a result of me using their service.
We shouldn't think that the Supreme Court is the only way to get privacy and property protections. Companies can also standup to the government to protect people's privacy. Companies can contest a subpoena; Microsoft and Apple, as two examples, have. Unfortunately, the phone companies seem too eager to share your data with the government. But I could see a phone carrier—T-mobile, are you listening?—marketing respect for privacy as a feature. If one company were brave enough to challenge subpoenas on grounds of their customer's privacy, perhaps others would follow.
Congress and State legislatures could—and should—enact legislation requiring warrants to access cell phone records. This would be a much more robust, enduring, and unambiguous protection than the SCOTUS decision.
Nor should we count on nine justices to protect our privacy or property. After the regrettable
Kelo decision, several states enacted legislation strengthening 5th Amendment protections, after the Court failed to do so. Had
Carpenter decision gone the other way, I'd hope states would enact similar 4th Amendment protections. They should do so anyway. Arizona didn't wait for SCOTUS to rule on civil asset forfeiture before enacting reforms that protect people's property rights.
We've got three, co-equal branches of government. Congress has been delegating too much power to the executive branch, and relying too much on the judicial to rein in abuses of the Constitution (even their own abuses). States should also be a check on federal government abuses. SCOTUS is not, and should not, be the only check on government overreach.
Further, we shouldn't look at this as a conservative vs. liberal split. As I've mentioned, everyone with an opinion on this case should read Gorsuch's dissent; he makes a stronger defense of private than the court opinion. Also, look at the history of 4th Amendment decisions under Scalia, who is obviously no longer on the Court, but one of the most conservative justices and perhaps the most consistent defender of the 4th Amendment.
Lastly, even in his dissent, it's clear that Alito believes in the 4th Amendment (and the way I read it, more strongly than the majority in this case); he just doesn't agree it applies in this case.
This was an interesting decision. Those who say this obviously should have been a 9-0 decision are missing the nuance, and—dare I say—obviously haven't actually looked at the decision.
[doublepost=1529699209][/doublepost]
I happen to like the outcome, but I don't like how they arrived at it and I do not feel what happened to this Petitioner was a 4th Amendment violation.
I agree. The immediate consequences are good, but the reasoning is imperfect.
We really need constitutional amendments to deal with these issues. Trying to shoehorn them into a 230 year old + document is a fool's errand.
Here's where I'd disagree, though. As I mentioned above, this could be handled via legislation requiring a warrant to search digital data held by a third party. The barriers to an amendment a high; we'll never see two thirds majority support for this. But property and privacy protecting legislation is feasible.
