Are we giving sufficient weight to Carpenter’s recognition of a reasonable expectation of privacy in historical CSLI when training new magistrates on geofence requests and tower dumps? In a 2025 clerkship seminar in Richmond, I saw warrant templates still treating seven days of CSLI as mere business records — I’d welcome the curricula or hypotheticals you use to bring practice back to Fourth Amendment first principles.
We rewrote our templates so geofences and tower dumps presume CSLI is ‘deeply revealing’ under Carpenter: default ≤6‑hour windows tied to the scene, a required alternatives box, explicit minimization/retention, and a two‑step filter by non‑case agents. Fourth Circuit wrinkles (e.g., Chatrie) may nudge the particulars, but teaching magistrates to treat CSLI like a diary, not a receipt, has stuck — would a short hypo contrasting a 30‑minute geofence with a 7‑day pull help your seminar?
I use a “7 days vs 6 hours” CSLI map exercise — add a minimization/deletion clause.