United States v. Carr was a Supreme Court case decided in 2020. The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the federal government’s use of a “stingray” device to track a suspect’s cell phone without a warrant. The defendant, Timothy Ivory Carr, argued that the use of the device violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the government, holding that the use of the stingray device did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the use of the device was reasonable because it was used to locate a suspect who was wanted for a serious crime and the device was used in a manner that did not intrude upon the suspect’s reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court also noted that the use of the device was limited in scope and did not involve the collection of any data from the suspect’s phone. The Court concluded that the use of the device was a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment and did not require a warrant.

In the dissenting opinion of United States v. Carr, Justice Scalia argued that the majority’s decision to allow a jury instruction on “willful blindness” was incorrect and should be overturned. He argued that this instruction is not supported by precedent or statutory law and could lead to an unfair conviction if applied too broadly. Furthermore, he noted that there are other ways for prosecutors to prove criminal intent without relying on such an ambiguous concept as willful blindness. In conclusion, Justice Scalia believed that allowing this jury instruction would create confusion in future cases and ultimately result in unjust convictions due to its lack of clarity and legal support.