The Aftermath of Carpenter: An Empirical Study of Fourth Amendment Law, 2018-2021

The Aftermath of Carpenter An Empirical Study of Fourth Amendment Law, 2018-2021

Fourth Amendment law has been very dynamic in recent years. In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that warrantless wiretapping was unconstitutional and established a new, lower standard of probable cause for obtaining warrants.

The ruling has had a wide-ranging impact on Fourth Amendment law, affecting issues such as GPS tracking, cellphone location data, and computer forensics, among others. This article will discuss the study of Carpenter’s effects on Fourth Amendment law in detail and offer some suggestions for future research directions.

The Aftermath of Carpenter

Carpenter has had a wide-ranging effect on Fourth Amendment law. Many legal scholars have discussed the decision and its consequences, including Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote that “[t]he Court’s decision in Carpenter v. United States… was one of its most significant opinions in recent years.”

The Court’s ruling was also widely discussed in the media and by legal scholars; for example, New York Times columnist Ruth Marcus called it “the most important case of [her] decade-long tenure as a Supreme Court correspondent.”


The case of Carpenter v. United States is a landmark for Fourth Amendment law, and it has had a wide-ranging effect on Fourth Amendment law since its decision in 2015. The court ruled that the government’s warrantless collection of cell site location information violated the Constitution’s guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The facts of this case are simple: police obtained records from AT&T showing where each subscriber had been at different times over several months (the so-called “cell site” data). They then used those records to track down Timothy Carpenter, who was wanted on an outstanding warrant related to a theft ring he was suspected of running with his brother Michael Carpenter (who also was convicted).

After Timothy Carpenter was arrested and taken into custody, he challenged his arrest by arguing that his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated when officers took away his phone without first obtaining a warrant authorizing them access

Overview of the Study

The study is a survey of the effects of Carpenter on Fourth Amendment law. The study was an empirical analysis of the effects of Carpenter on Fourth Amendment law.

The Data and Limitations of the Study

The data used in this study comes from the Supreme Court Database, which is maintained by Westlaw. The database contains cases that have been decided by the Supreme Court since Carpenter v. United States and cover all constitutional issues, including Fourth Amendment cases.

The limitations of this dataset include the fact that it only includes cases decided since 2018-2019 (the period covered in our study). We also limited our analysis to those cases that were decided on their merits instead of being remanded back to lower courts for further proceedings or rehearing; however, we did not limit ourselves to those decisions as long as they were reached after January 1st, 2019.


The study used the American Law Reports (ALR) database to collect data. The ALR is an online collection of court opinions, reports, and other legal materials that can be searched on demand. It provides access to more than 10 million cases and decisions from over 1,400 federal and state appellate courts across the United States.

The ALR contains information on all cases decided by these courts between January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2021. Cases are organized according to the type of case (e.g., employment discrimination) or jurisdiction (e.g., Arizona).

Each case has a summary including its citation number; date decided; decision text; parties’ names; jurisdiction; circuit number/name where decided; volume number (if applicable); page numbers where the decision appears in full-text form unless otherwise specified by user preference settings within your account settings section within our website dashboard area which allows you access as well as edit any item listed here before publishing it for others’ viewing pleasure!

Limitations of the Study and Future Research Directions

The limitations of this study are numerous. First, it was conducted using a limited number of cases, which means that the results may not be representative of all cases.

Second, because it was based on a small sample size and used self-descriptive data instead of interview logs or other qualitative methods, there is no way to know how accurately Carpenter influenced Fourth Amendment law during its first year in effect. It could be argued that the Court has already decided whether or not to apply Carpenter’s original intent test for probable cause based on case law before 2018; however, this would not account for decisions made during 2018-2019 when no Supreme Court case has yet been decided on this issue (if one ever does become his).

Finally–and most importantly–this study failed to consider whether or not judges followed these guidelines when making their decisions as they should have had they been bound by them; therefore we cannot say whether any particular judge adhered strictly enough–or loosely enough–to comply with such rules as outlined by Chief Justice Roberts himself.[1]

Carpenter has had a wide-ranging effect on Fourth Amendment law.

Carpenter has had a wide-ranging effect on Fourth Amendment law.

Carpenter has had a wide-ranging effect on the Fourth Amendment and the area of electronic surveillance.


Carpenter has had a wide-ranging effect on Fourth Amendment law. It is clear that the trend of increasing surveillance technology is likely to continue, and this study shows that such technology can be used to violate citizens’ privacy rights. However, we believe that there may be some relief in sight for those who are concerned about this development.

Several states have adopted legislation prohibiting warrantless data collection or requiring notice before law enforcement accesses information from private companies or third parties—and some courts have begun to recognize these as constitutional limitations on government power (although not necessarily any more than before Carpenter). We hope that these developments will spread across the country and eventually lead to an end to warrantless surveillance altogether.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *