My friend, Claudio, a scientist and biology professor, frequently debates me on the subject of the American system of governing. An immigrant from Rome, Italy, he challenges the American Federalism system where there are 50 state governments that decide most matters for their own states. This is most recently reflected by the varied announcements of various governors' executive orders related to COVID-19. Claudio is troubled by a system that intentionally limits certain decision making powers in the name of decentralization arguing that the European model of centralized government is so much more efficient. In order to best him, I invariably rely on American history and historical analysis. I must admit that, though, at times, it does seem that our Constitutional Federalism system creates its own set of impediments in the name of decentralization and individual freedom that we must frequently endeavor to navigate through.

This federal-state dichotomy is reflected in the application and impact on New York State Criminal Law by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Carpenter v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 206 (2018). Carpenter held that law enforcement must obtain a search warrant, by proof satisfying the "probable cause" standard, when obtaining a subject's telephone company cell site location information (electronically stored information or ESI). See, also, Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (in most cases a search warrant is necessary for the government to obtain the content's on one's smart phone); and see generally, Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967) (defining "probable cause" under the Fourth Amendment).