Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Third-party doctrine

The third-party doctrine is a principle of United States constitutional law derived from the Fourth Amendment, under which individuals forfeit any reasonable expectation of privacy in information they voluntarily disclose to third parties, such as banks or telecommunications providers, thereby allowing the government to obtain such data without a warrant.^[1]^[2] This doctrine stems from the Supreme Court's interpretation of the reasonable expectation of privacy test established in Katz v. United States (1967), but applies specifically to disclosures where control over the information is knowingly relinquished to intermediaries.^[1]^[2] The doctrine originated in United States v. Miller (1976), where the Court held that financial records held by a bank—voluntarily shared by the depositor—carry no Fourth Amendment protection, as they belong to the bank and reflect the depositor's assumption of the risks of disclosure.^[1] It was extended in Smith v. Maryland (1979), ruling that telephone numbers dialed and recorded by a phone company via a pen register lack privacy protections, since the caller knowingly conveys them to facilitate the call.^[2] These decisions have enabled warrantless access to a wide array of business records, including email metadata, internet logs, and financial transactions, underpinning much of modern government surveillance practices under statutes like the Stored Communications Act.^[3]^[4] Critics contend the doctrine undermines Fourth Amendment safeguards in an era of pervasive data collection, where routine participation in digital services necessitates sharing detailed personal information with third-party providers, effectively nullifying privacy for essential activities.^[5] In Carpenter v. United States (2018), the Supreme Court imposed a narrow limitation, requiring warrants for prolonged cell-site location records due to their unique ability to chronicle intimate life patterns without true voluntary consent in the modern context, though the core doctrine persists for shorter-term or less revealing data.^[6]^[7] This ruling highlights ongoing tensions between the doctrine's formal logic—rooted in voluntary risk assumption—and empirical realities of unavoidable data intermediaries, fueling scholarly and judicial reevaluation without overturning its foundational holdings.^[5]^[6]

Foundational Principles

Definition and Fourth Amendment Context

The third-party doctrine is a U.S. Supreme Court-derived principle holding that individuals lack a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment for information voluntarily disclosed to third parties, permitting government access to such data without a warrant.^[8] This doctrine posits that by sharing information with entities like banks or telephone companies, a person assumes the risk that the recipient may reveal it to authorities, thereby forfeiting constitutional safeguards against unreasonable searches.^[9] It applies specifically to records or data held by intermediaries, distinguishing them from personal effects retained in one's exclusive possession. The Fourth Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Historically interpreted through a property-based lens, its scope expanded in Katz v. United States (1967), where the Court established that searches implicating a subjective expectation of privacy deemed reasonable by society trigger warrant requirements.^[10] The third-party doctrine emerged as a corollary, reasoning that voluntary conveyance to outsiders negates any societal recognition of privacy, as the discloser effectively relinquishes control and invites potential exposure.^[11] This framework prioritizes the voluntary nature of disclosure over the sensitivity of the information, even for financial or communicative records integral to personal affairs. Critics argue the doctrine's binary approach—privacy or none—overlooks modern realities where disclosures to service providers are functionally compelled by daily necessities, yet the Court has upheld it as consistent with Katz's objective test, absent evidence of compelled sharing.^[12] In practice, it exempts subpoenaed third-party records from probable cause scrutiny, contrasting with direct invasions of personal spaces or effects that demand judicial oversight.^[13] This delineation underscores the Amendment's focus on government intrusion into protected zones rather than information already disseminated beyond individual dominion.

Origins in Katz v. United States

In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court confronted the constitutionality of warrantless electronic surveillance conducted by federal agents who attached a listening device to the exterior of a public telephone booth in Los Angeles.^[14] Petitioner Charles Katz, convicted under federal law for transmitting wagering information across state lines via telephone, had used the booth to place bets, unaware that FBI agents recorded his conversations over several days without judicial approval.^[14] The lower courts upheld the surveillance, reasoning that no physical trespass into the booth occurred, drawing on precedents like Olmstead v. United States (1928) that emphasized property intrusions over privacy interests.^[14] The Court reversed the conviction in a 7-1 decision on December 18, 1967, holding that the Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless searches wherever an individual harbors a reasonable expectation of privacy, regardless of property boundaries.^[14] Justice Potter Stewart's majority opinion articulated that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places," and that what a person "knowingly exposes to the public" lacks constitutional safeguard, but efforts to preserve communications as private—such as entering a booth and closing its door—trigger protection against governmental intrusion.^[14]^[15] This shifted Fourth Amendment analysis from a strict trespass doctrine to a broader inquiry into privacy expectations, establishing that electronic eavesdropping constitutes a search implicating the Amendment's warrant requirement.^[14] Justice John Harlan's concurrence formalized the influential two-prong test for assessing such expectations: first, whether the individual has manifested a subjective expectation of privacy; second, whether that expectation is one society deems objectively reasonable and justifiable.^[16] This framework provided the analytical foundation for the third-party doctrine, as subsequent rulings applied it to deny reasonable expectations in information voluntarily disclosed to intermediaries like banks or telephone companies, reasoning that such disclosures assume the risk of further revelation and thus fail the objective prong.^[16]^[15] While Katz expanded privacy protections against direct governmental surveillance, its emphasis on justifiable reliance implicitly limited safeguards for data shared beyond one's exclusive control, setting the stage for doctrinal exceptions in an era of increasing third-party data handling.^[16]

Key Supreme Court Cases

United States v. Miller (1976)

In United States v. Miller, federal investigators in southern Georgia suspected respondent Mitch Miller of involvement in illegal alcohol distilling operations in 1973.^[1] They obtained ex parte subpoenas from a United States magistrate directing two local banks to produce all records of Miller's accounts, including copies of checks, deposit slips, and other financial documents spanning several months.^[3] The banks complied without notifying Miller, and the government used the materials before a grand jury, which indicted him on multiple counts, including possession of an unregistered distillery, conducting a distilling business without bond, and intent to defraud the United States of liquor taxes.^[17] At trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Miller moved to suppress the bank records, asserting violations of his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination; the district court denied the motion, and Miller was convicted on four counts, receiving concurrent three-year sentences.^[1] The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that a depositor's Fourth Amendment rights are infringed when, without prior notice and opportunity to object, a bank discloses financial records maintained pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970.^[3] The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the appeals court's decision in a 7-2 ruling on April 21, 1976, with Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. writing for the majority.^[1] The Court held that Miller possessed no protectable Fourth Amendment interest in the subpoenaed bank records, rendering their disclosure to the government lawful without a warrant.^[17] Even assuming the subpoena process constituted a "seizure," the majority reasoned, it did not amount to an unlawful one because the Fourth Amendment safeguards only against government intrusions into areas where individuals hold a legitimate expectation of privacy, as articulated in Katz v. United States (1967).^[1] Bank records of checks, deposits, and withdrawals, the Court explained, constitute the banks' own business records, created and maintained to fulfill legal requirements under federal banking statutes, such as those mandating retention for five years to verify transactions and combat fraud.^[17] These documents reveal only the nature of financial transactions voluntarily conveyed to third-party banks, exposing them to bank employees and subjecting them to examination by the banks themselves for business purposes, thus eliminating any reasonable expectation of confidentiality or privacy on Miller's part.^[3] The majority further rejected Miller's Fifth Amendment claim, noting that the records were not his "private papers" or testimonial in nature, and their production involved no compulsion directed at him personally.^[1] Justices William J. Brennan Jr. and Thurgood Marshall dissented, arguing that financial records aggregate to disclose highly personal details about an individual's lifestyle, associations, and expenditures—information not truly "voluntary" in conveyance due to the necessity of banking services in modern commerce—and thus warrant Fourth Amendment protection akin to other forms of intimate governmental scrutiny.^[17] This decision formalized a core element of the third-party doctrine, establishing that individuals forfeit Fourth Amendment privacy interests in information knowingly shared with third parties, even if such sharing is functionally obligatory for everyday activities like banking.^[1] The ruling facilitated government access to financial data via subpoenas, influencing subsequent applications to other transactional records until partially qualified by later cases.^[3]

Smith v. Maryland (1979)

In Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court examined whether police installation and use of a pen register—a device that records numbers dialed on a telephone line—without a warrant constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.^[2] On March 5, 1976, Patricia McDonough was robbed in her Baltimore home by an intruder who took her television and other items; she described the perpetrator's vehicle as a dark blue 1975 Monte Carlo with Maryland license plates.^[4] After receiving subsequent obscene and threatening phone calls believed to be from the robber, McDonough spotted the same vehicle, leading police to trace it to petitioner Michael Lee Smith.^[4] On March 17, 1976, Baltimore police requested the Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company to install a pen register on Smith's residential phone line without obtaining a warrant or court order; the device captured outgoing numbers dialed, revealing calls to McDonough's number.^[2] This data supported a subpoena for Smith's phone records, which provided his address, enabling police to secure a search warrant for his apartment where they found incriminating evidence, including McDonough's belongings.^[4] Smith was convicted of robbery in Maryland state court following denial of his motion to suppress the pen register evidence, with the trial court ruling that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred.^[2] The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that telephone users lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in dialed numbers.^[2] The Supreme Court granted certiorari on December 4, 1978, heard oral arguments on March 28, 1979, and issued its decision on June 20, 1979, in a 5-3 ruling written by Justice Harry Blackmun (joined by Chief Justice Burger, and Justices White, Rehnquist, and Stevens; Justice Powell recused himself).^[4] The majority held that the pen register did not perform a "search" requiring Fourth Amendment protection, as Smith had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed.^[2] Applying the two-pronged test from Katz v. United States (389 U.S. 347, 1967), the Court found neither a subjective nor objective expectation of privacy: users voluntarily convey numerical information to the phone company, "expos[ing]" it to equipment in the ordinary course of business, and assume the risk of its misuse or disclosure.^[2] The opinion extended the third-party doctrine from United States v. Miller (425 U.S. 435, 1976), reasoning that "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties," even if for limited purposes like billing.^[2] Unlike wiretaps intercepting content, pen registers reveal only "noncontent" addressing information already accessible to the carrier, akin to business records; moreover, users are aware such records exist, as evidenced by monthly bills listing calls.^[2] The Court rejected analogies to physical intrusions or broader privacy in conversations, emphasizing that the device's limited scope did not intrude on the "expectation that certain implements, facilities, or services will not be used" invasively.^[2] Justice Potter Stewart dissented (joined by Justice Brennan), arguing that dialed numbers reveal the "identities of the persons to whom" calls are made, inextricably linked to communicative content and warranting privacy expectations under Katz, as they expose "the whole tenor of [the user's] conversations."^[2] Justice Thurgood Marshall separately dissented (also joined by Brennan), critiquing the "assumption-of-risk" analysis as flawed: disclosure to a third party for functional necessity (connecting calls) does not equate to consent for unrestricted government access, potentially chilling intimate associations and free speech by monitoring call destinations without safeguards.^[2] He urged treating pen registers as presumptively invasive, requiring warrants to balance investigative needs against privacy.^[4] Smith reinforced the third-party doctrine by applying it to telephonic metadata, establishing that individuals forfeit Fourth Amendment claims over information knowingly shared with intermediaries like telephone companies, regardless of the government's subsequent acquisition.^[2] This limited the doctrine's scope to non-content data voluntarily transmitted, distinguishing it from protected conversation substance, and influenced subsequent rulings on surveillance tools by prioritizing the voluntary conveyance principle over comprehensive privacy in digital equivalents.^[2]

Pre-Carpenter Applications

The third-party doctrine, as articulated in United States v. Miller (1976) and Smith v. Maryland (1979), was routinely invoked by federal courts to authorize government access to records held by third-party custodians without warrants, encompassing financial, telephonic, and emerging digital data.^[1]^[2] In the financial domain, post-Miller decisions permitted grand jury subpoenas for bank records—including checks, deposit slips, and statements—as these were deemed the banks' own business records, with depositors assumed to have waived privacy by voluntarily entrusting the information.^[18] This approach facilitated routine investigative access, with no Fourth Amendment violation found in disclosures to government authorities.^[1] Telephony applications extended Smith's pen register precedent to cellular and digital equivalents. Courts approved the installation of trap-and-trace devices or pen registers to capture dialed numbers, including from mobile phones, under the Pen Register and Trap and Trace Devices Act (1986), which required only a court order certifying relevance rather than probable cause.^[2] By the early 2000s, this encompassed metadata from VoIP services and cell tower connections, treating the exposed routing information as voluntarily conveyed to carriers, akin to landline numbers.^[18] Lower courts analogized Smith to internet metadata. In United States v. Forrester (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit held that users have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their IP addresses—which reveal destination websites but not content—or e-mail to/from headers, as these parallel the phone numbers deemed unprotected in Smith. The monitoring, conducted via a court-ordered "computer and network surveillance" device for 44 days, was upheld as non-search activity, emphasizing that such data is necessarily shared with intermediaries for transmission. Pre-Carpenter, the doctrine similarly governed cell-site location information (CSLI). Federal circuits, including the Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh, uniformly ruled that historical CSLI—generated automatically by wireless carriers to facilitate service—required no warrant, only a § 2703(d) order under the Stored Communications Act showing specific and articulable facts.^[6] For instance, the Sixth Circuit in the underlying Carpenter appeal (2016) applied the doctrine, finding subscribers voluntarily disclose approximate locations to carriers, forfeiting privacy claims.^[19] This consensus enabled law enforcement to obtain months of location records tracking individuals' movements with minimal judicial oversight.^[6]

Narrowing and Modern Evolution

Carpenter v. United States (2018)

In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed whether the government's warrantless acquisition of historical cell-site location information (CSLI) from wireless carriers constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.^[6] The case originated from a series of armed robberies of RadioShack and T-Mobile stores in Michigan and Ohio between December 2010 and March 2011, in which petitioner Timothy Carpenter led a gang of accomplices.^[20] Following the arrests of four accomplices, the FBI obtained court orders under the Stored Communications Act (SCA) to access their cell phone records, which implicated Carpenter; investigators then secured similar SCA orders for Carpenter's records from MetroPCS and Verizon, covering 127 days and generating over 12,000 location points without a warrant supported by probable cause.^[6]^[7] This data, derived from cell towers connecting calls and texts, placed Carpenter's phone near the robbery sites at the relevant times, contributing to his conviction on multiple counts of robbery and aiding and abetting, for which he received a sentence exceeding 100 years.^[20] Carpenter moved to suppress the CSLI evidence, arguing it violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but the district court denied the motion, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, applying the third-party doctrine from United States v. Miller (1976) and Smith v. Maryland (1979) to hold that individuals lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily conveyed to third-party carriers.^[6] The Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 5, 2017, heard oral arguments on November 29, 2017, and reversed in a 5-4 decision on June 22, 2018, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority.^[21] The Court held that the government's acquisition of Carpenter's historical CSLI was a search requiring a warrant, as cell phones automatically generate precise, comprehensive records of an individual's movements over extended periods, creating a "detailed chronicle" of personal life that implicates substantial privacy interests beyond those in bank records or dialed numbers.^[6]^[20] Roberts emphasized that while service providers need CSLI to function, users do not voluntarily expose their locations to the government in the same manner as limited disclosures in prior cases, and the third-party doctrine's assumptions fail amid ubiquitous cell phone use, where individuals carry devices "at virtually all times," generating "near perfect surveillance" akin to a GPS tracker.^[6] The majority explicitly narrowed the third-party doctrine, declining to extend Miller and Smith to CSLI because such data is "detailed, indiscriminate, and continuous," enabling retrospective location tracking far more invasive than the categorical exceptions for financial records or pen registers, which involve discrete, limited disclosures.^[6] The ruling was confined to historical CSLI obtained from carriers, excluding real-time tracking (governed by separate standards) and data users voluntarily share with others, and allowed exceptions for emergencies or short-term records (e.g., a week or less).^[6] Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred in the judgment but critiqued the third-party doctrine's foundations in Smith and Miller as inconsistent with property-based Fourth Amendment protections, advocating a narrower approach focused on actual control over information rather than assumptions of consent to third-party exposure.^[6] Justice Anthony Kennedy dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and (in part) Neil Gorsuch, arguing that CSLI involves voluntary conveyance to carriers for service, fitting squarely within the third-party doctrine, and that warrant requirements would unduly burden law enforcement without evidence of widespread abuse under the SCA's relevance standard.^[6] Alito's separate dissent, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, warned that the decision creates arbitrary lines (e.g., duration thresholds) and fails to address broader digital privacy issues, potentially complicating investigations while leaving other metadata unprotected.^[6] Thomas also filed a solo statement questioning the doctrine's validity but agreeing on reversal due to the government's use of general SCA orders lacking probable cause.^[6] By rejecting a blanket application of the third-party doctrine to modern digital records like CSLI, Carpenter marked the first Supreme Court limitation on the doctrine since its inception, recognizing that pervasive technology alters expectations of privacy and requires probable cause warrants for long-term location data, though it preserved the doctrine for less comprehensive third-party disclosures.^[6]^[7] This holding prompted federal and state courts to reassess warrantless access to similar records, influencing Stored Communications Act practices without fully abolishing the doctrine or extending protections to all metadata.^[22]

Post-Carpenter Developments

Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Carpenter v. United States on June 22, 2018, which required warrants supported by probable cause for obtaining historical cell-site location information (CSLI) spanning more than a short period, federal and state law enforcement markedly increased warrant applications for such data, rising from sporadic use to routine practice in nearly all relevant investigations.^[23] This shift reflected Carpenter's rejection of categorical third-party doctrine application to long-term, comprehensive location records, while preserving it for brief, non-exhaustive disclosures.^[6] Lower courts have developed a Carpenter-derived test to assess Fourth Amendment claims involving other third-party digital data, weighing factors such as the information's sensitivity and revelatory capacity, its automated generation by third parties, retention duration, and law enforcement's alternative access means.^[24] Applications have yielded inconsistent outcomes, with courts often confining Carpenter to scenarios mirroring CSLI's pervasive tracking—typically requiring warrants for extended Google Location History or app-derived geodata that reconstruct movements over days or weeks—but permitting subpoena-based access for shorter-term or less precise records like real-time pings under 24 hours.^[25] An empirical review of approximately 500 federal and state decisions from 2018 to 2021 documented warrants mandated in over 90% of historical CSLI challenges post-Carpenter, but only 20-40% for analogous non-carrier location data, underscoring judicial reluctance to broadly erode the doctrine.^[25] Notable cases illustrate this delimited extension. In United States v. Chatrie (E.D. Va. 2020), the district court suppressed Google geofence warrant evidence under Carpenter, deeming it an overbroad search akin to CSLI, though the Fourth Circuit reversed on en banc rehearing in 2024, upholding the warrant as constitutional when tailored to specific crimes, locations, and timeframes, distinct from Carpenter's passive, exhaustive collection.^[26] Similarly, courts have rejected warrantless acquisition of vehicle telematics or smart meter data for prolonged periods due to their intimacy, but sustained it for IP addresses, email metadata, or single-transaction financial logs, reaffirming precedents like Smith v. Maryland (1979) and United States v. Miller (1976) absent Carpenter-level intrusiveness.^[27] The doctrine remains intact for traditional third-party records, with no successful Carpenter challenges to bank statements or utility bills, as their voluntary disclosures and limited scope do not evoke the "near perfect surveillance" of digital location aggregates.^[24] As technologies like data brokers and IoT proliferate, lower courts continue refining boundaries without Supreme Court clarification, prioritizing case-specific particularity over categorical rules.^[28]

Applications to Contemporary Technologies

Cell-Site Location Information and Tracking

Cell-site location information (CSLI) consists of time-stamped records generated by wireless carriers whenever a cell phone connects to a cell site, or tower, revealing the device's approximate location based on the serving antenna and, through triangulation from multiple sites, potentially within a range of several hundred meters to as precise as 50 meters in urban areas with dense tower coverage.^[6] These records are automatically created as a byproduct of network operations, with modern smartphones generating thousands of data points daily—up to one every few seconds—enabling reconstruction of an individual's movements over extended periods without their knowledge or consent.^[6] Prior to 2018, law enforcement routinely obtained historical CSLI from carriers under the third-party doctrine, treating it as non-private business records voluntarily conveyed to third parties, accessible via court orders issued pursuant to the Stored Communications Act (SCA) of 1986, which required only specific and articulable facts rather than probable cause.^[20] In Carpenter v. United States (2018), the Supreme Court narrowed the third-party doctrine's application to CSLI, ruling 5-4 that government acquisition of historical cell-site records spanning more than six hours—and typically seven days or longer—constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, necessitating a warrant supported by probable cause.^[6] The case involved the FBI obtaining 12,898 location points over 127 days for Timothy Carpenter's phone under SCA orders, which mapped his movements with sufficient detail to place him near nine robbery sites; the Court rejected extending United States v. Miller (1976) and Smith v. Maryland (1979) to CSLI, reasoning that such data forms a comprehensive "chronicle of location information" revealing intimate details of private life, including visits to religious sites, medical facilities, and political gatherings, far beyond the limited disclosures in prior precedents.^[6] Chief Justice Roberts's majority opinion emphasized the involuntary and exhaustive nature of CSLI generation in an era of ubiquitous cell phone use—over 396 million subscriptions in the U.S. as of 2018—holding that individuals retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements as captured by long-term CSLI, despite third-party retention.^[6] Post-Carpenter, federal and state authorities have shifted to obtaining warrants for historical CSLI, with the Department of Justice directing prosecutors to seek probable cause-based warrants for records exceeding brief durations, though short-term acquisitions (under seven days) may still fall outside the ruling's core protection.^[28] For real-time or prospective CSLI tracking—where carriers actively monitor and report a phone's ongoing connections—courts have increasingly required warrants as well, finding no constitutionally significant distinction from historical data; for instance, a Pennsylvania appellate decision in 2020 held that real-time CSLI implicates equivalent privacy concerns, as it enables immediate, continuous surveillance akin to physical tailing.^[29] This evolution has prompted debates over "tower dumps," where authorities compel carriers to disclose all devices connecting to a specific site, with some lower courts suppressing such bulk data absent warrants post-Carpenter, citing mosaic theory principles that aggregate location points reveal patterns unprotected by fragmented disclosures.^[30] While Carpenter preserved the third-party doctrine for less invasive records like bank statements or dialed numbers, its CSLI carve-out has curtailed warrantless tracking, balancing law enforcement needs against pervasive digital surveillance capabilities.^[6]

Financial and Banking Records

The application of the third-party doctrine to financial and banking records originated in United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), where the Supreme Court held that a depositor lacks a legitimate Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in records maintained by a bank.^[1] In that case, federal investigators subpoenaed Mitchell Miller's bank records from two Georgia banks to investigate illegal distilling operations; the records revealed checks linked to sugar purchases indicative of moonshine production.^[3] The Court reasoned that such records constitute the business records of the bank itself, not confidential communications of the depositor, and that by depositing funds, the customer voluntarily conveys information to the third-party institution, assuming the risk of government access via subpoena.^[1] This holding distinguished banking records from protected personal papers, emphasizing that banks maintain these records for their own purposes under regulatory requirements, such as those predating modern statutes like the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970.^[1] The decision rejected arguments for privacy based on the intimate nature of financial details, asserting instead that no search or seizure occurs when the government obtains copies of existing third-party documents without physically intruding on the depositor's premises.^[3] Dissenters, including Justice Brennan, contended that this undermined reasonable privacy expectations in an era of extensive government record-keeping mandates, but the majority's 6-3 ruling prevailed.^[1] In response to Miller, Congress enacted the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (RFPA), which imposes statutory limits on government access to financial records by requiring customer notice, an opportunity to challenge subpoenas, and certifications of legitimate law enforcement need, though it does not alter the underlying constitutional doctrine.^[31] Under RFPA, agencies like the IRS or FBI typically obtain records via administrative summons or grand jury subpoenas rather than warrants, preserving the third-party framework while adding procedural safeguards.^[31] The doctrine's validity for banking records persisted after Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018), which required warrants for prolonged cell-site location information but explicitly affirmed the third-party doctrine's application to categories like bank records and telephone numbers, noting their qualitative differences from comprehensive digital tracking data.^[6] Lower courts have continued to uphold warrantless subpoenas for financial records in criminal investigations, such as fraud or money laundering cases, viewing them as voluntarily disclosed business information rather than inherently private revelations.^[28] For instance, in post-Carpenter rulings, federal appellate decisions have rejected Fourth Amendment challenges to bank subpoenas, distinguishing routine financial disclosures from the passive, exhaustive surveillance at issue in Carpenter.^[32] In contemporary contexts, the doctrine extends to digital banking platforms and electronic transaction records held by institutions, where customers routinely share detailed financial metadata—such as account balances, transfers, and merchant details—for services like online payments or credit reporting.^[33] Government access remains feasible without probable cause warrants, provided statutory processes are followed, though critics argue this overlooks evolving privacy norms in automated, data-intensive financial systems.^[34] No Supreme Court decision has overturned Miller's core holding for financial records as of 2025.^[6]

Digital Communications and Metadata

The third-party doctrine has been applied to digital communications by courts to permit government access to information voluntarily disclosed to internet service providers (ISPs), email platforms, and other intermediaries without a warrant based on probable cause. Under this framework, users lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in data such as email headers, IP addresses, and internet connection logs, as these are shared with third-party providers during transmission or storage.^[35] The Stored Communications Act (SCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2713, facilitates such access by allowing law enforcement to obtain non-content records—like subscriber information, session logs, and metadata—with a subpoena or a § 2703(d) court order requiring only specific and articulable facts, rather than a full warrant.^[36] In contrast to content, which receives greater protection, metadata from digital communications remains largely governed by the doctrine established in Smith v. Maryland (1979), extended analogously to internet protocols. For instance, federal appellate courts, including the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Trader (2021), have ruled that obtaining IP addresses and associated email account details from ISPs falls under the third-party doctrine, as users knowingly convey this information to providers for routing purposes.^[37] Similarly, the Seventh Circuit in 2021 upheld the use of pen register orders for capturing IP addresses, affirming no Fourth Amendment violation since the data is exposed to the ISP.^[38] While Carpenter v. United States (2018) carved out an exception for prolonged cell-site location information (CSLI), rejecting blanket application of the doctrine to data revealing comprehensive movement patterns over 127 days, it did not broadly invalidate the doctrine for other digital metadata. Post-Carpenter, lower courts have consistently distinguished non-location metadata—such as email timestamps, recipient lists, or browsing session durations—as less intrusive and still subject to third-party disclosure principles, often accessible via SCA mechanisms without warrants.^[39] This distinction preserves law enforcement efficiency for routine investigations while highlighting ongoing debates over metadata's revelatory potential in aggregate form.^[9]

Criticisms and Debates

Claims of Obsolescence in the Digital Age

Legal scholars have contended that the third-party doctrine, originating from cases like United States v. Miller (1976) and Smith v. Maryland (1979), presumes limited and voluntary disclosures of discrete information, such as bank records or dialed phone numbers, which bear little resemblance to the comprehensive digital data routinely collected today.^[40]^[41] In the pre-digital era, such disclosures involved minimal personal revelation, but modern technologies generate voluminous records—including browsing histories, app usage, and sensor data—that aggregate into detailed profiles of individuals' lives, rendering the doctrine's assumptions obsolete.^[42]^[41] Critics highlight the doctrine's binary treatment of privacy—either fully protected or wholly forfeited—as particularly ill-suited to digital contexts, where data shared with third parties like internet service providers or device manufacturers enables inference of sensitive activities, such as health conditions or political affiliations, through metadata alone.^[42] For instance, smart home devices, including voice assistants like Amazon Echo, transmit audio recordings and usage patterns to manufacturers, which could reveal intimate household details, as demonstrated in a 2015 Arkansas murder investigation where police sought such data without a warrant.^[42] By 2017, approximately 95% of Americans owned cell phones, often kept within five feet, facilitating constant data generation that exceeds the limited transactional records contemplated in foundational cases.^[40] A core objection is the erosion of voluntariness: participation in digital services is effectively mandatory for economic and social functions, creating "contracts of adhesion" where users disclose data without meaningful alternatives or full awareness of implications, unlike the deliberate sharing presumed by the doctrine.^[41]^[42] This dynamic transforms society into a "society of records" held by third parties, where government access without warrants circumvents Fourth Amendment safeguards, particularly for non-content data like real-time location or financial metadata untouched by reforms.^[42]^[40] Judicial voices have echoed these concerns, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her concurrence in United States v. Jones (2012), describing the doctrine as "ill suited to the modern era" because ubiquitous electronic tracking of "mundane tasks" reveals far more than isolated disclosures, potentially warranting reevaluation under a reasonable expectation of privacy framework akin to Katz v. United States (1967).^[42]^[12] Even after Carpenter v. United States (2018), which mandated warrants for historical cell-site location information exceeding seven days, the doctrine persists for shorter-term or alternative digital records, leaving gaps that critics argue expose individuals to arbitrary surveillance without adequate Fourth Amendment recourse.^[41]^[40] Scholars propose narrowing or abolishing the doctrine, advocating warrant requirements for sensitive digital data to align with contemporary privacy realities and prevent its undermining of core constitutional protections.^[41]^[42]

Concerns Over Mass Surveillance and Government Overreach

Critics argue that the third-party doctrine facilitates mass surveillance by permitting government agencies to obtain vast troves of personal data from third-party providers without judicial oversight, effectively bypassing Fourth Amendment warrant requirements. Established in cases like United States v. Miller (1976) and Smith v. Maryland (1979), the doctrine posits no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to intermediaries such as banks or telephone companies. In practice, this has enabled bulk collection programs, where agencies compel providers to surrender aggregated records encompassing millions of individuals' activities, raising fears of indiscriminate monitoring rather than targeted investigations.^[6] The doctrine's application came under intense scrutiny following Edward Snowden's 2013 disclosures of National Security Agency (NSA) programs, which relied on Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act to acquire bulk telephony metadata—including call numbers, durations, and timestamps—from telecommunications firms. Justified under the third-party doctrine as non-content business records akin to pen registers, this program amassed records on approximately 200 million telephone connections daily, allowing queries of up to two or three "hops" from seed selectors without individualized suspicion. Legal challenges, such as ACLU v. Clapper (2013) and subsequent appeals, highlighted how such dragnet collection eroded privacy by creating comprehensive behavioral profiles, even absent direct content access.^[43]^[44] A 2015 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruling in ACLU v. Clapper declared the NSA's bulk metadata program unlawful, rejecting the government's third-party rationale as incompatible with statutory limits on "relevant" records and arguing it exceeded congressional intent for terrorism prevention. Despite the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 curtailing bulk collection by shifting storage to providers and requiring specific court orders, residual concerns persist over "backdoor" accesses and the doctrine's persistence for other metadata types. Scholars contend this enables government overreach, as modern data volumes—far exceeding 1970s-era pen registers—reveal intimate details like associations, movements, and habits, fostering a surveillance state where ordinary citizens' data fuels perpetual monitoring.^[44]^[45] Even post-Carpenter v. United States (2018), which mandated warrants for long-term cell-site location information and critiqued the doctrine's fit for pervasive digital tracking, applications to financial records, internet metadata, and app data remain unchecked, amplifying overreach risks. Legal analyses warn of "mission creep," where initial counterterrorism justifications expand to domestic policing, potentially chilling free expression through self-censorship amid perceived omnipresent scrutiny. While proponents of expansive surveillance cite national security imperatives, empirical reviews of Section 215 queries show minimal terrorism linkages—fewer than 1% yielding investigations—undermining claims of necessity and highlighting efficiency gains at privacy's expense.^[6]^[46]^[43]

Defenses and Rationales

Alignment with Original Intent and Limited Government

The third-party doctrine comports with the original public meaning of the Fourth Amendment, which emphasized protection of tangible property—"persons, houses, papers, and effects"—against physical government intrusions, rather than shielding information voluntarily relinquished to third parties from subpoena. In the Founding era, individuals understood that entrusting records to banks, merchants, or postal services exposed them to potential disclosure, as such documents became business records subject to routine legal processes without warrant requirements; for instance, colonial and early American practice allowed grand juries to subpoena commercial ledgers as non-private effects. This property-centric framework, as articulated in United States v. Miller (1976), holds that financial records held by banks "are the business records of the banks," not the depositor's private papers, thereby denying Fourth Amendment claims absent possession or control. Originalist scholars reinforce this by noting that the Amendment's drafters targeted general warrants and writs of assistance—abuses involving physical seizures—not abstract informational privacy in shared data, distinguishing the doctrine from later expansions under Katz v. United States (1967).^[1]^[47] By confining warrant protections to individually controlled items, the doctrine upholds limited government, curtailing judicial expansion into commercial spheres where businesses already possess and use data for operational ends, such as billing or risk assessment. Imposing probable cause mandates on third-party records, as critics advocate, would transform everyday disclosures—like dialing a phone number or depositing funds—into constitutional hurdles, overburdening courts with ex ante reviews for information the individual has causally forfeited through voluntary sharing. Legal commentator Orin Kerr defends this as equilibrium-preserving, arguing that abolishing the doctrine would prompt substitution effects, driving criminals toward self-encryption or evasion tactics that necessitate more invasive, property-trespassing searches, ultimately eroding the Amendment's reasonableness balance without enhancing actual privacy. Empirical patterns pre-Carpenter v. United States (2018) show targeted, subpoena-based access rather than indiscriminate seizures, aligning with a restrained executive unbound by invented entitlements.^[18]

Benefits for Law Enforcement Efficiency

The third-party doctrine permits law enforcement to obtain records from third-party custodians, such as telephone companies or banks, through administrative subpoenas rather than search warrants requiring probable cause and judicial approval based on an affidavit.^[48] This lower evidentiary threshold streamlines access to information voluntarily conveyed to intermediaries, reducing procedural delays that could impede timely investigations. Subpoenas, often issuable by prosecutors without immediate judicial intervention, contrast with warrants, which demand detailed showings of probable cause and can involve hours or days of preparation and review, particularly for non-exigent record requests.^[49] Legal scholar Orin Kerr argues that the doctrine supports investigative efficiency by treating shared information as outside core Fourth Amendment protections, allowing targeted evidence gathering without warrant formalities while preserving rules against broader surveillance.^[50] This approach prevents exploitation by offenders who might route communications or transactions through third parties to fabricate privacy claims, ensuring law enforcement can leverage existing data repositories for routine probes into crimes like fraud or drug trafficking. For instance, in cases involving financial records under United States v. Miller (1976), the doctrine enabled swift subpoena compliance from banks, aiding detection of illicit funds without the burden of probable cause demonstrations for each transaction detail.^[50] Proponents highlight that such efficiencies align with crime-control priorities, as warrantless third-party access facilitates early-stage leads in dynamic investigations where evidence like call logs or metadata dissipates if delayed.^[15] Without the doctrine, routine inquiries into low-privacy disclosures would routinely escalate to full warrant processes, straining resources and potentially hindering resolutions in volume-driven caseloads, such as those handled by federal agencies issuing thousands of annual subpoenas for telephony records.^[51] This framework thus balances evidentiary needs against constitutional limits, prioritizing practical utility in evidence collection over heightened scrutiny for voluntarily exposed data.^[50]

Broader Implications

Impact on Privacy Expectations Post-Dobbs

The third-party doctrine, established in cases such as United States v. Miller (425 U.S. 435, 1976) and Smith v. Maryland (442 U.S. 735, 1979), holds that individuals lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties, such as financial records or telephone metadata. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization on June 24, 2022, which eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion, this doctrine has enabled state authorities to obtain warrantless access to digital records—including internet search histories, geolocation data, and app usage—in investigations of suspected abortions or related activities.^[52] Such access has been pursued under statutes like the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2712), which permits government requests for electronic records held by providers with minimal judicial oversight. Post-Dobbs, at least 61 documented criminal investigations into abortion-related conduct have occurred since 2000, with a surge in cases relying on third-party data to reconstruct private medical decisions, such as searches for abortion pills or visits to clinics.^[53] For instance, in Nebraska in 2022, prosecutors charged Jessica Burgess and her daughter with illegal abortion after obtaining records of online pill orders and communications, demonstrating how the doctrine facilitates tracing self-managed procedures without warrants.^[54] Similarly, pre-Dobbs but indicative of post-decision trends, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton subpoenaed Google in 2021 for geofence data around abortion facilities, a tactic replicated in states enforcing bans to identify potential violators via location history shared with tech firms.^[52] These practices underscore diminished privacy expectations for reproductive health data generated by apps like period trackers, which often disclose cycle information or related queries to third-party servers.^[53] While Carpenter v. United States (585 U.S. 296, 2018) required warrants for prolonged cell-site location information due to its comprehensive revelation of personal movements, the third-party doctrine persists for most digital metadata, limiting its application to abortion surveillance.^[6] Lower courts have occasionally extended Carpenter's logic to sensitive health data, as in Ohio's State v. Eads (2020-Ohio-2805), which recognized privacy interests in medical records despite third-party involvement, but federal precedent has not broadly overturned the doctrine.^[53] Consequently, post-Dobbs enforcement has heightened vulnerabilities, as states leverage routinely collected data from internet service providers and app developers to prosecute individuals, eroding expectations of confidentiality in intimate decisions absent legislative reforms or doctrinal evolution.^[52] Scholarly analyses argue that the doctrine's assumptions of "voluntariness" fail for ubiquitous digital sharing, yet current law prioritizes law enforcement access over comprehensive privacy safeguards.^[53]

Challenges with Cloud Data and AI

The third-party doctrine permits government access to data stored in cloud services via subpoena rather than warrant, as users voluntarily disclose information to providers such as Google or Amazon Web Services, relinquishing Fourth Amendment protections.^[55]^[56] This application stems from precedents like United States v. Miller (1976) and Smith v. Maryland (1979), extended to digital storage where personal files, emails, and documents reside on third-party servers.^[57] Courts have upheld this for stored communications post-Warshak v. United States (2010), distinguishing ongoing transmissions from retained data accessible without probable cause.^[57] Challenges arise from the scale and intimacy of cloud data, which often encompasses exhaustive personal histories—contrasting the limited records contemplated in 1970s rulings—prompting arguments that users retain reasonable privacy expectations despite terms of service disclosures.^[58]^[59] The doctrine facilitates broad access, with over 200,000 annual National Security Letters and subpoenas targeting cloud-held information, enabling retrieval of terabytes of data without judicial oversight of necessity or scope.^[56] Post-Carpenter v. United States (2018), which mandated warrants for cell-site location data as a narrow exception due to its pervasive and precise nature, lower courts have resisted extending similar protections to cloud content, deeming it non-unique under the doctrine.^[6]^[56] Scholars contend this leaves cloud storage vulnerable to overreach, as automated retention policies and encryption notwithstanding, providers must comply, potentially exposing untargeted sensitive materials like health records or financial plans.^[60] In the context of artificial intelligence, the doctrine amplifies risks for data inputs and outputs shared with AI platforms, where user queries, generated responses, and training datasets are held by third parties like OpenAI or xAI, forfeiting privacy claims.^[61] Legal analyses highlight that AI systems process vast personal data volumes—such as conversational histories or inferred profiles—under the same subpoena standards, without warrants, raising concerns over algorithmic retention and potential government compelled disclosures.^[61]^[62] Emerging challenges include AI's opaque data handling, where voluntary sharing for model improvement mirrors cloud uploads but involves dynamic analysis, complicating assumptions of limited exposure; as of 2024, no Supreme Court ruling has addressed this directly, leaving precedents intact amid calls for reevaluation given AI's role in amplifying data granularity.^[62]^[63] This framework has prompted critiques that it erodes incentives for secure AI deployment, as providers face liability for non-compliance while users underestimate disclosure scopes in end-user agreements.^[64]

References

[1]
United States v. Miller | 425 U.S. 435 (1976)
The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities. ... U.S. State Law ...
[2]
Smith v. Maryland | 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
This Court has held repeatedly that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to ...
[3]
United States v. Miller | Oyez
United States, Miller's rights were not violated when a third party - his bank - transmitted information that he had entrusted them with to the government. Cite ...
[4]
Smith v. Maryland | Oyez
Because the Fourth Amendment does not apply to information that is voluntarily given to third parties, the telephone numbers that are regularly and voluntarily ...
[5]
"Confronting <i>Carpenter</i>: Rethinking the Third-Party Doctrine ...
The U.S. Supreme Court recently limited the reach of the third-party doctrine regarding location data held by cellphone providers. However, this limitation ...
[6]
[PDF] 16-402 Carpenter v. United States (06/22/2018) - Supreme Court
Jun 22, 2018 · The third-party doctrine partly stems from the notion that an indi- vidual has a reduced expectation of privacy in information knowingly shared ...
[7]
Carpenter v. United States | Oyez
Nov 29, 2017 · The Court declined to extend the "third-party doctrine"—a doctrine where information disclosed to a third party carries no reasonable ...
[8]
Michael Lee SMITH, Petitioner, v. State of MARYLAND.
Petitioner concedes that if he had placed his calls through an operator, he could claim no legitimate expectation of privacy. Tr. of Oral Arg. 3-5, 11-12, 32.
[9]
[PDF] A Third-Party Doctrine for Digital Metadata
The third-party doctrine is one such rule, holding that police do not need a Fourth Amendment warrant to access information that an individual has voluntarily ...
[10]
Katz and the Adoption of the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Test
The reasonable expectation of privacy test, from Katz, requires a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable.
[11]
Amdt4.3.3 Katz and Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Test
Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure ... Relying on this concurrence, the Carpenter Court recognized a limit to the third-party doctrine ...
[12]
[PDF] the application of the third-party - doctrine to conveyed papers
The third-party doctrine maintains that individuals lose. Fourth Amendment protection for information knowingly re- vealed to third parties.
[13]
Alexa: Can You Keep a Secret? The Third-Party Doctrine in the Age ...
The third-party doctrine says there is no expectation of privacy in information voluntarily provided to others. The Fourth Amendment protects the right to be ...
[14]
Katz v. United States | 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
It is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to conduct a search and seizure without a warrant anywhere that a person has a reasonable expectation of ...
[15]
Mixed Signals: An Analysis of the Third-Party Doctrine as Applied to ...
Apr 4, 2018 · To understand the origin of the third-party doctrine, one must go back to the 1967 Katz v. United States decision in which the Court shifted its ...
[16]
The Third-Party Doctrine vs. Katz v. United States - Justia's Verdict
Jun 17, 2020 · Once you forfeit your privacy, the Fourth Amendment no longer protects it. We refer to the principle described in these cases and those that ...
[17]
[PDF] United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976). - Loc
Jan 12, 1976 · It held that any evidence so obtained must be suppressed. Since we find that respondent had no pro- tectable Fourth Amendment interest in the ...<|separator|>
[18]
The Fourth Amendment Third-Party Doctrine - EveryCRSReport.com
Jun 5, 2014 · In 1976, the Court took up its first major third-party doctrine case to deal with transactional documents in Miller v. United States. In that ...
[19]
[PDF] CSLI, Third-Party Doctrine, and Privacy in the Twenty-First Century
In Katz, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth. Amendment protects more than just persons and property but also information in which one has a reasonable ...
[20]
CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES | Supreme Court - Law.Cornell.Edu
The third-party doctrine partly stems from the notion that an individual has a reduced expectation of privacy in information knowingly shared with another.
[21]
Carpenter v. United States - SCOTUSblog
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 22, 2018. Justice Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices ...
[22]
The Aftermath of Carpenter: An Empirical Study of Fourth ...
May 10, 2022 · The Supreme Court recently established, in the landmark case Carpenter v. United States, that individuals can retain Fourth Amendment rights ...Missing: summary | Show results with:summary
[23]
Two Years of Carpenter | Inside Privacy
Jul 7, 2020 · In Carpenter, the Court declined to apply the third-party doctrine to cell-site location information, even though the cell phone user revealed ...
[24]
The Impact of Carpenter v. United States in the Lower Courts and ...
Nov 3, 2021 · Carpenter held that individuals can retain Fourth Amendment rights in information they disclose to a third party, at least in some situations.
[25]
[PDF] An Empirical Study of Fourth Amendment Law, 2018-2021
Sep 16, 2020 · Carpenter v. United States established that individuals can retain Fourth Amendment rights in information disclosed to a third party. This ...
[26]
[PDF] on rehearing en banc - Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
Apr 30, 2025 · What Carpenter does say is that law enforcement needs to obtain a warrant before it utilizes digital technology to track a citizen's long-term ...
[27]
Fourth Amendment Reasonableness After Carpenter
Apr 1, 2019 · ”47 In rejecting the city's third-party-doctrine argument, the Seventh Circuit relied on Carpenter: [I]n this context, a choice to share ...
[28]
Resolving Carpenter's Third-Party Paradox (Part I - Just Security
Sep 21, 2023 · Carpenter's rejection of the third-party doctrine to this type of information was a seismic departure from settled law, opening up myriad ...
[29]
[PDF] Conducting Surveillance and Collecting Location Data in a Post ...
Oct 5, 2020 · In many cases, however, the government may wish to proactively monitor a known suspect by having a wireless communications provider gather CSLI.
[30]
Courts Grapple with a Sea Change in Fourth Amendment Law After ...
Dec 29, 2019 · Real Time Location Tracking. In 2019, several courts looked to Carpenter in addressing the constitutionality of real-time location tracking.Real Time Location Tracking · 24/7 Video Surveillance · Reverse Location Searches
[31]
Right to Financial Privacy Act - Epic.org
In United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court held that a bank customer does not have a legally recognizable expectation of privacy in records of accounts ...
[32]
[PDF] How Sensitivity Can Categorize Third-Party Data After Carpenter
influential case creating that third-party doctrine, United States v. Miller, established that government investigators can warrantlessly gather unlimited ...
[33]
Third-Party Doctrine and the Fourth Amendment
Dec 8, 2023 · In Miller, the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment did not protect bank records because the information was voluntarily shared with a third ...
[34]
[PDF] Confronting Carpenter: Rethinking the Third-Party Doctrine and ...
The third-party doctrine allows law enforcement to obtain personal information shared with third parties without a warrant, including location data.<|control11|><|separator|>
[35]
A Third-Party Doctrine for Digital Metadata | Cardozo Law Review
The third-party doctrine is one such rule, holding that police do not need a Fourth Amendment warrant to access information that an individual has voluntarily ...Missing: explanation | Show results with:explanation
[36]
Communications Act of 1934, as amended - Congress.gov
Aug 3, 2022 · The principle known as the third-party doctrine holds that the Fourth Amendment generally does not protect private information shared with third ...Missing: digital | Show results with:digital
[37]
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT: THIRD-PARTY DOCTRINE ALLOWS POLICE ...
The court examined whether the third-party doctrine allows law enforcement to obtain internet protocol (IP) addresses and email account information without a ...
[38]
Still "Penned" In: Seventh Circuit Holds IP Address Pen Register ...
Sep 27, 2021 · ... third-party doctrine.” See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967). In Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), the Supreme Court ...
[39]
Carpenter v. United States, the Stored Communications Act, & the ...
The third party doctrine stipulates that information disclosed to a third party is not subject to Fourth Amendment protections, because individuals relinquish ...
[40]
Unplanned Obsolescence: Re-examining the Third Party Doctrine in ...
Unplanned Obsolescence: Re-examining the Third Party Doctrine in the Digital Age ... The contours of this privacy expectation seem poised for a tectonic shift.
[41]
[PDF] The Outdated Third-Party Doctrine and the Need for Modernization
29 Further, in 1979, the Court stated in Smith v. Maryland that “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information. [they] voluntarily turn ...
[42]
If These Walls Could Talk: The Smart Home and the Fourth ...
May 9, 2017 · The beginning point of the third party doctrine is Katz v. United States, 14 in which the Supreme Court established the reasonable expectation ...<|separator|>
[43]
The Legal Legacy of the NSA's Section 215 Bulk Collection Program
Nov 16, 2015 · The ruling concludes that NSA's bulk metadata collection likely violates the Fourth Amendment, but as others have noted, the victory may not have tremendous ...
[44]
NSA mass phone surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden ruled ...
May 7, 2015 · The US court of appeals has ruled that the bulk collection of telephone metadata is unlawful, in a landmark decision that clears the way for a full legal ...
[45]
NSA Surveillance of Communications Metadata Violates Privacy ...
Nov 5, 2015 · The federal government asserts there is no Fourth Amendment interest in communications metadata, like that collected through the NSA's dragnet ...
[46]
[PDF] <i> Carpenter v. United States </i> and the Fourth Amendment's Third
The third-party doctrine ignores the warrant requirement in the Fourth. Amendment and allows the police to circumvent a warrant request from a judge,.
[47]
[PDF] Fourth Amendment “Papers” and the Third-Party Doctrine - NYU Law
It tells the story of the Court's doctrinal evolution from a focus on property rights and trespass law to the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test developed ...
[48]
Get a Warrant: The Government's Unconstitutional Practice of ...
Feb 9, 2024 · Subpoenas are a powerful government tool because they do not require a showing of probable cause. The DOJ has broad authority to issue subpoenas ...
[49]
Subpoena vs. Search Warrant - NYC - Spodek Law Group
Rating 5.0 (685) Jul 22, 2025 · Subpoena: You typically have time to comply or challenge the request in court. Search Warrant: It grants immediate authority to law enforcement ...
[50]
"The Case for the Third-Party Doctrine" by Orin S. Kerr
This Article offers a defense of the Fourth Amendment's third party doctrine, the controversial rule that information loses Fourth Amendment protection.Missing: supreme court
[51]
Justice Manual | 9-13.000 - Obtaining Evidence
The Policy governs the use of subpoenas or similar civil process such as civil investigative demands to obtain materials or testimony from members of the news ...
[52]
[PDF] Data Privacy and Abortion–The Next Frontier of the Fourth Amendment
After Dobbs, states use data like internet history and GPS to investigate private healthcare decisions, raising privacy concerns. The Fourth Amendment and data ...
[53]
[PDF] Breaking Down the Third-Party Doctrine and Reproductive Health ...
Apr 21, 2025 · Backlash to Dobbs Has Reinforced the Reasonable Expectation of. Privacy for Reproductive Health Information. Courts handling Fourth Amendment ...
[54]
[PDF] The Sobering Realities of Reproductive Data Privacy in a Post-Roe ...
Jun 12, 2025 · third-party doctrine implies “that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.
[55]
Do You Own Your Cloud Data? Third-Party Doctrine Says No
May 7, 2025 · US regulators are can access your private data without a warrant as long as it's being stored by a third party.
[56]
[PDF] The Third-Party Doctrine in the 21st Century
Mar 22, 2021 · This Paper argues that the third-party doctrine does not apply to cloud data, ... different species of business record” than the bank documents in ...
[57]
[PDF] Lost in the Cloud - Stanford Law Review
Mar 3, 2017 · Courts have identified two critical issues with applying the third- party doctrine to cloud storage. First, especially in cases involving e ...
[58]
The Fourth Amendment, the Third-Party Doctrine, and Cloud-Stored ...
May 5, 2025 · The legal framework surrounding the Fourth Amendment and third-party doctrine was built for an entirely different world than the one you and I ...
[59]
[PDF] A Cognitive Theory of the Third-Party Doctrine and Digital Papers
ABSTRACT. For nearly 200 years, an individual's personal papers enjoyed near-absolute protection from government search and seizure.<|separator|>
[60]
[PDF] The Third-Party Doctrine and the Future of the Cloud
Dec 4, 2017 · First, I argue that the broad view of the. Third-Party Doctrine is manifestly unsuited to the protection of our digital civil liberties. Second, ...
[61]
[PDF] ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, AND ...
Sep 26, 2024 · Under the third-party doctrine, the Court has held that an individual does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in information that they ...
[62]
[PDF] The Domestic and International Limitations of the Third-Party ...
Oct 18, 2024 · The third-party doctrine, pre-dating the internet, enables law enforcement but falls behind in the digital landscape, creating a dead end for ...
[63]
[PDF] A Solution for the Third-Party Doctrine in a Time of Data Sharing ...
According to the third-party doctrine, the government can access all such information without a warrant or without infringing on Fourth. Amendment privacy ...
[64]
AI and Privacy on a Legal Collision Course: Steps Businesses ...
Aug 28, 2025 · Ensure contracts are executed with all third-party AI solution providers and other third parties that may otherwise have access to PII by way of ...