Law Commons^™

Eavesdropping, The Fourth Amendment, And The Common Law (Of Eavesdropping), Donald A. Dripps

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article addresses two of the most momentous and controversial issues raised by the Fourth Amendment. These issues are closely related but distinct. First, is eavesdropping a “search” subject to the Fourth Amendment? Second, are Fourth Amendment “searches” limited to the interests against physical intrusion protected by the common-law torts of trespass and false arrest?

[...]

Remarkably, the debate about the Fourth Amendment, the common law, and eavesdropping has almost completely ignored the common law of eavesdropping. This Article is the first to consider the Fourth Amendment in light of an in-depth examination of the common law’s prohibition of …

The Fourth Amendment's Constitutional Home, Gerald S. Dickinson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The home enjoys omnipresent status in American constitutional law. The Bill of Rights, peculiarly, has served as the central refuge for special protections to the home. This constitutional sanctuary has elicited an intriguing textual and doctrinal puzzle. A distinct thread has emerged that runs through the first five amendments delineating the home as a zone where rights emanating from speech, smut, gods, guns, soldiers, searches, sex, and self-incrimination enjoy special protections. However, the thread inexplicably unravels upon arriving at takings. There, the constitutional text omits and the Supreme Court’s doctrine excludes a special zone of safeguards to the home. This …

Geofence Warrants: Geolocating The Fourth Amendment, A. Reed Mcleod

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Note begins by focusing on the technology and procedure of geofence warrants in Part I. Because an understanding of both the technology and procedure is ultimately required to make any headway in later legal analysis, this step is necessary. The heart of the legal analysis is undertaken in Parts II and III.

In Part II, this Note argues that law enforcement requests for location data require a warrant: either because of the expectation of privacy in location data proposed by cases such as Carpenter v. United States or because some courts have found that Carpenter's holding must mean …

Fitbit Data And The Fourth Amendment: Why The Collection Of Data From A Fitbit Constitutes A Search And Should Require A Warrant In Light Of Carpenter V. United States, Alxis Rodis

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Four Responses To Constitutional Overlap, Michael Coenen

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Sometimes government action implicates more than one constitutional right. For example, a prohibition on religious expression might be said to violate both the Free Speech Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, a rule regarding same-sex marriage might be said to violate both equal protection and substantive due process, an exercise of the eminent domain power might be said to violate both procedural due process and the Takings Clause, a disproportionate criminal sentence based on judge-found facts might be said to violate both the defendant’s right to trial by jury and that defendant’s right against cruel and unusual punishment, and so …

The Common Law Endures In The Fourth Amendment, George C. Thomas Iii

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The text of the Fourth Amendment provides no guidance about what makes a search unreasonable or when warrants are required to make a search reasonable. The Supreme Court has had to craft a doctrine based on intuition, policy goals, and halfhearted stabs at history. This Article argues that the Court’s Fourth Amendment doctrine is stable when it roughly tracks the eighteenth-century common law protection of property, privacy, and liberty. When the Court has sought to provide more protection than the common law provided, the result has been an erratic doctrine that has gradually receded almost back to the common law …

A Tale Of Two Clauses: Search And Seizure, Establishment Of Religion, And Constitutional Reason, Perry Dane

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article dissects two developments in widely separate areas of American constitutional law—the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test for the Fourth Amendment’s Search and Seizure Clause and the “endorsement” test for the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. These two stories might seem worlds apart, and they have not previously been systematically examined together. Nevertheless, the Article argues that they have in common at least three important symptoms of our legal culture’s deep malaise. These three phenomena occur in other contexts, too, but they appear with special clarity and a stark cumulative force in the two stories on which this Article focuses. …

Carpenter V. United States And The Fourth Amendment: The Best Way Forward, Stephen E. Henderson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

We finally have a federal ‘test case.’ In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court is poised to set the direction of the Fourth Amendment in the digital age. The case squarely presents how the twentieth-century third party doctrine will fare in contemporary times, and the stakes could not be higher. This Article reviews the Carpenter case and how it fits within the greater discussion of the Fourth Amendment third party doctrine and location surveillance, and I express a hope that the Court will be both a bit ambitious and a good measure cautious.

As for ambition, the Court …

Feeding The Machine: Policing, Crime Data, & Algorithms, Elizabeth E. Joh

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Fourth Amendment Disclosure Doctrines, Monu Bedi

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The third party and public disclosure doctrines (together the “disclosure doctrines”) are long-standing hurdles to Fourth Amendment protection. These doctrines have become increasingly relevant to assessing the government’s use of recent technologies such as data mining, drone surveillance, and cell site location data. It is surprising then that both the Supreme Court and scholars, at times, have associated them together as expressing one principle. It turns out that each relies on unique foundational triggers and does not stand or fall with the other. This Article tackles this issue and provides a comprehensive topology for analyzing the respective contours of each …

Notice And Standing In The Fourth Amendment: Searches Of Personal Data, Jennifer Daskal

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In at least two recent cases, courts have rejected service providers’ capacity to raise Fourth Amendment claims on behalf of their customers. These holdings rely on longstanding Supreme Court doctrine establishing a general rule against third parties asserting the Fourth Amendment rights of others. However, there is a key difference between these two recent cases and those cases on which the doctrine rests. The relevant Supreme Court doctrine stems from situations in which someone could take action to raise the Fourth Amendment claim, even if the particular third-party litigant could not. In the situations presented by the recent cases, by …

Warning: Stop-And-Frisk May Be Hazardous To Your Health, Josephine Ross

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Binary Searches And The Central Meaning Of The Fourth Amendment, Lawrence Rosenthal

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Power And Responsibility: Fourth Amendment Limits On The Use Of Molecular Scanners, Paul Wolfgramm Jr.

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Sense-Enhanced Searches And The Irrelevance Of The Fourth Amendment, David E. Steinberg

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Constitutional Infirmity Of Warrantless Nsa Surveillance: The Abuse Of Presidential Power And The Injury To The Fourth Amendment, Robert Bloom, William J. Dunn

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In the past year, there have been many revelations about the tactics used by the Bush administration to prosecute its war on terrorism. These stories involve the exploitation of technologies that allow the government, with the cooperation of phone companies and financial institutions, to access phone and financial records. This Article focuses on the revelation and widespread criticism of the Bush administration's operation of a warrantless electronic surveillance program to monitor international phone calls and e-mails that originate or terminate with a United States party. The powerful and secret National Security Agency heads the program and leverages its significant intelligence …

Turning A Government Search Into A Permanent Power: Thornton V. United States And The "Progressive Distortion" Of Search Incident To Arrest, George M. Dery Iii, Michael J. Hernandez

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

A Law Student In The Supreme Court: United States V. Drayton And The Future Of Consent Search Analysis, Dennis J. Callahan

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Righteous Shooting, Unreasonable Seizure? The Relevance Of An Officer's Pre-Seizure Conduct In An Excessive Force Claim, Aaron Kimber

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Individualized School Searches And The Fourth Amendment: What's A School District To Do?, Jason E. Yearout

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

As high-profile incidents of school violence appear to become more frequent and severe, public perception has deteriorated to the point where many citizens believe that schools are unsafe and administrators lack the power to control student activity. In their efforts to promote a safe learning environment, many school administrators have attempted to create strict guidelines concerning the power of school personnel to prevent illegal and unsafe activity from taking place at school. However, as administrators devise the rules by which to implement these standards, they are given little guidance by the Supreme Court regarding the application of the Fourth Amendment …

Suspicionless Drug Testing And Chandler V. Miller: Is The Supreme Court Making The Right Decisions, Ross H. Parr

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

During the last decade, the United States Supreme Court has rendered four major decisions regarding the validity of suspicionless drug testing policies. Such drug testing policies have become a common way for employers and other interested parties-including the government-both to deter the use of drugs and to determine who is acting under the influence of illegal narcotics. Because government officials often randomly select individuals for drug testing, some of these individuals have charged that a governmental drug testing policy violates the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court found this argument unconvincing in three cases decided between 1989 and 1997, but in …

Does The Fourth Amendment Apply To The Armed Forces?, Fredric I. Lederer, Frederic L. Borch

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.