In the 2018 case of Carpenter v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a landmark opinion in ruling that the Fourth Amendment protects cell phone location information.  The Court recognized that location information, collected by cellular telephone service providers, creates a “detailed chronicle of a person’s physical presence compiled every day, every moment over years.”  As a result, the police must now get a warrant before obtaining this data. For years, the government had argued that the fact that this type of data is collected by phone companies makes it automatically devoid of constitutional protection.  This argument is based on an outdated legal principle called the “Third Party Doctrine,” which was developed by the Supreme Court in two main cases from the 1970s involving records of phone calls and bank transactions.  The thrust of this doctrine is that when an individual voluntarily “shares” information with a third party, such as a telephone company (or a cell phone tower), the individual no longer has the “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the information that has traditionally been required to trigger Fourth Amendment protection. Do you believe that the nature of modern surveillance technologies, such as the use of cell phone location tracking, is sufficiently invasive to trigger a “reasonable expectation of privacy” even in one’s public movements?  In a few sentences, explain why or why not and post your comments.  Please also comment on at least one other student’s post to extend the discussion in the forum.