{"id":49254,"date":"2021-08-01T09:52:52","date_gmt":"2021-08-01T14:52:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=49254"},"modified":"2021-08-01T09:53:21","modified_gmt":"2021-08-01T14:53:21","slug":"n-d-ill-carpenter-did-not-signal-scotuss-abandonment-of-the-third-party-doctrine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=49254","title":{"rendered":"N.D.Ill.: <em>Carpenter<\/em> did not signal SCOTUS\u2019s abandonment of the third party doctrine"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Carpenter did not signal SCOTUS\u2019s abandonment of the third party doctrine to non-CSLI. United States v. Osadzinski, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141637 (N.D.Ill. July 29, 2021)*:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<!--more-->\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>Defendant moves to suppress the evidence obtained from the \u00a7 2703(d) orders. In doing so, defendant makes three arguments: (1) the government&#8217;s application lacked specific and articulable facts; (2) the lack of a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment; and (3) the historical nature of the obtained information violates Carpenter. Essentially, defendant asks this court to extend the &#8220;narrow&#8221; holding of Carpenter to information other than cell-site location information (&#8220;CSLI&#8221;). Courts across the country have been faced with similar requests; almost all have denied them. See, e.g., United States v. Morel, 922 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2019) (&#8220;Carpenter did not announce a wholesale abandonment of the third-party doctrine&#8221;); United States v. Contreras, 905 F.3d 853, 857 (5th Cir. 2018) (noting that &#8220;the third-party doctrine continues to apply to &#8216;business records that might incidentally reveal location information,&#8217; including\u2026bank records&#8221; (quoting Carpenter)); United States v. Wellbeloved-Stone, 777 Fed. App&#8217;x 605, 607 (4th Cir. 2019) (&#8220;[defendant] cites no post-Carpenter authority extending Carpenter&#8217;s rationale to IP addresses or subscriber information&#8221;). The court declines to extend Carpenter&#8217;s reasoning to the information at issue.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Carpenter did not signal SCOTUS\u2019s abandonment of the third party doctrine to non-CSLI. United States v. Osadzinski, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141637 (N.D.Ill. July 29, 2021)*:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[79],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-49254","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-third-party-doctrine"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49254","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=49254"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49254\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":49257,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49254\/revisions\/49257"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=49254"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=49254"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=49254"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}