Law Commons^™

The Carceral Home, Kate Weisburd

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

In virtually all areas of law, the home is the ultimate constitutionally protected area, at least in theory. In practice, a range of modern institutions that target private life—from public housing to child welfare—have turned the home into a routinely surveilled space. Indeed, for the 4.5 million people on criminal court supervision, their home is their prison, or what I call a “carceral home.” Often in the name of decarceration, prison walls are replaced with restrictive rules that govern every aspect of private life and invasive surveillance technology that continuously records intimate information. While prisons have always been treated in …

An Overview Of Privacy Law In 2022, Daniel J. Solove, Paul M. Schwartz

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

Chapter 1 of PRIVACY LAW FUNDAMENTALS (6th edition, IAPP 2022) provides an overview of information privacy law circa 2022. The chapter summarizes the common themes in privacy laws and discusses the various types of laws (federal, constitutional, state, international). It contains a list and brief summary of the most significant U.S. federal privacy laws. The heart of the chapter is an historical timeline of major developments in the law of privacy and data security, including key cases, enactments of laws, major regulatory developments, influential publications, and other significant events. The chapter also contains a curated list of important treatises and …

Officer-Created Jeopardy: Broadening The Time Frame For Assessing A Police Officer’S Use Of Deadly Force, Cynthia Lee

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

When a police officer’s use of deadly force kills or seriously injures a civilian, that officer may face civil liability or criminal prosecution. In both civil and criminal cases, a critical question that the jury must decide is whether the officer’s use of force was reasonable or excessive. As a general matter, the jury will be advised that it should consider all the relevant facts and circumstances—the totality of the circumstances—to answer this question.

An officer’s decisions and conduct prior to that officer’s use of deadly force can create jeopardy for the civilian and the officer, increasing the risk of …

Sentenced To Surveillance: Fourth Amendment Limits On Electronic Monitoring, Kate Weisburd

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

As courts and legislatures increasingly recognize that “digital is different” and attempt to limit government surveillance of private data, one group is conspicuously excluded from this new privacy-protective discourse: the five million people in the United States on probation, parole, or other forms of community supervision. This Article is the first to explore how warrantless electronic surveillance is dramatically transforming community supervision and, as a result, amplifying a growing privacy-protection disparity: those in the criminal legal system are increasingly losing privacy protections even while those not in the system are increasingly gaining privacy protections. The quickly expanding use of GPS-equipped …

An Overview Of Privacy Law, Daniel J. Solove, Paul M. Schwartz

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

Chapter 2 of PRIVACY LAW FUNDAMENTALS provides a brief overview of information privacy law – the scope and types of law. The chapter contains an historical timeline of major developments in the law of privacy and data security.

PRIVACY LAW FUNDAMENTALS is a distilled guide to the essential elements of U.S. data privacy law. In an easily-digestible format, the book covers core concepts, key laws, and leading cases.

Professors Daniel Solove and Paul Schwartz clearly and concisely distill all relevant information about privacy law into this short volume. PRIVACY LAW FUNDAMENTALS is designed to be like Strunk and White’s Elements …

Reasonableness With Teeth: The Future Of Fourth Amendment Reasonableness Analysis, Cynthia Lee

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

This essay assesses the past, the present, and the future of Fourth Amendment reasonableness analysis. Part I focuses on the past. For much of the twentieth century, the Court embraced what is called the warrant preference view of the Fourth Amendment under which a search was considered reasonable if the government obtained a search warrant prior to the search or an exception to the warrant requirement applied. Part II focuses on the present. Even though it still treats as reasonable both searches conducted pursuant to a warrant and searches that fall within a well established exception to the warrant requirement, …

Package Bombs, Footlockers, And Laptops: What The Disappearing Container Doctrine Can Tell Us About The Fourth Amendment, Cynthia Lee

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

In the 1970s, the Court announced in a series of cases that police officers with probable cause to believe contraband or evidence of a crime is within a container must obtain a warrant from a neutral, detached judicial officer before searching that container. In requiring a search warrant, the Container Doctrine put portable containers on an almost equal footing with houses, which enjoy unquestioned Fourth Amendment protection.

This Article demonstrates that the Container Doctrine is fast becoming a historical relic as the Court expands the ways in which law enforcement officers can search containers without first obtaining a warrant issued …

Nothing To Hide: The False Tradeoff Between Privacy And Security (Introduction), Daniel J. Solove

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

"If you've got nothing to hide," many people say, "you shouldn't worry about government surveillance." Others argue that we must sacrifice privacy for security. But as Daniel J. Solove argues in this book, these arguments and many others are flawed. They are based on mistaken views about what it means to protect privacy and the costs and benefits of doing so.

In addition to attacking the "Nothing-to Hide Argument," Solove exposes the fallacies of pro-security arguments that have often been used to justify government surveillance and data mining. These arguments - such as the "Luddite Argument,"the "War-Powers Argument," the "All-or-Nothing …

Fourth Amendment Pragmatism, Daniel J. Solove

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

In this essay, Professor Solove argues that the Fourth Amendment reasonable expectation of privacy test should be abandoned. Instead of engaging in a fruitless game of determining whether privacy is invaded, the United States Supreme Court should adopt a more pragmatic approach to the Fourth Amendment and directly face the issue of how to regulate government information gathering. There are two central questions in Fourth Amendment analysis: (1) The Coverage Question - Does the Fourth Amendment provide protection against a particular form of government information gathering? and (2) The Procedure Question - How should the Fourth Amendment regulate this form …

Whose Eyes Are You Going To Believe? Scott V. Harris And The Perils Of Cognitive Illiberalism, Donald Braman, Dan M. Kahan, David A. Hoffman

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

This paper accepts the unusual invitation to see for yourself issued by the Supreme Court in Scott v. Harris, 127 S. Ct. 1769 (2007). Scott held that a police officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment when he deliberately rammed his car into that of a fleeing motorist who refused to pull over for speeding and instead attempted to evade the police in a high-speed chase. The majority did not attempt to rebut the arguments of the single Justice who disagreed with its conclusion that no reasonable juror could find the fleeing driver did not pose a deadly risk to …

The First Amendment As Criminal Procedure, Daniel J. Solove

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

This Article explores the relationship between the First Amendment and criminal procedure. These two domains of constitutional law have long existed as separate worlds, rarely interacting with each other despite the fact that many instances of government information gathering can implicate First Amendment freedoms of speech, association, and religion. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments used to provide considerable protection for First Amendment interests, as in the famous 1886 case Boyd v. United States, in which the Supreme Court held that the government was prohibited from seizing a person's private papers. Over time, however, Fourth and Fifth Amendment protection has shifted, …

A Taxonomy Of Privacy, Daniel J. Solove

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

Privacy is a concept in disarray. Nobody can articulate what it means. As one commentator has observed, privacy suffers from an embarrassment of meanings. Privacy is far too vague a concept to guide adjudication and lawmaking, as abstract incantations of the importance of privacy do not fare well when pitted against more concretely-stated countervailing interests.

In 1960, the famous torts scholar William Prosser attempted to make sense of the landscape of privacy law by identifying four different interests. But Prosser focused only on tort law, and the law of information privacy is significantly more vast and complex, extending to Fourth …

The Fourth Amendment: Internal Revenue Code Or A Body Of Principles?, Stephen A. Saltzburg

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

The Supreme Court has made the body of Fourth Amendment law too complicated, inconsistent, and confusing. Prior to Mapp v. Ohio, in 1961, the Court focused its attention on federal law enforcement and devoted less of its docket to criminal procedure cases. After Mapp, the Court was called upon to review state cases and forced to deal with the myriad of state law enforcement issues that inevitably arise. Since Mapp, the Court has made the meaning of the relatively few words that constitute the Fourth Amendment extremely complicated, so that the total body of Fourth Amendment law has begun to …

Fourth Amendment Codification And Professor Kerr's Misguided Call For Judicial Deference, Daniel J. Solove

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

This essay critiques Professor Orin Kerr's provocative article, The Fourth Amendment and New Technologies: Constitutional Myths and the Case for Caution, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 801 (2004). Increasingly, Fourth Amendment protection is receding from a litany of law enforcement activities, and it is being replaced by federal statutes. Kerr notes these developments and argues that courts should place a thumb on the scale in favor of judicial caution when technology is in flux, and should consider allowing legislatures to provide the primary rules governing law enforcement investigations involving new technologies. Kerr's key contentions are that (1) legislatures create rules …

The Digital Person: Technology And Privacy In The Information Age (Introduction), Daniel J. Solove

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

THE DIGITAL PERSON: TECHNOLOGY AND PRIVACY IN THE INFORMATION AGE (ISBN: 0814798462) (NYU Press 2004) explores the social, political, and legal implications of the collection and use of personal information in computer databases. In the Information Age, our lives are documented in digital dossiers maintained by hundreds (perhaps thousands) of businesses and government agencies. These dossiers are composed of bits of our personal information, which when assembled together begin to paint a portrait of our personalities. The dossiers are increasingly used to make decisions about our lives - whether we get a loan, a mortgage, a license, or a job; …

Digital Dossiers And The Dissipation Of Fourth Amendment Privacy, Daniel J. Solove

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

In this article, Professor Solove examines the increasing information flow from the private sector to the government, especially in light of the response to September 11, 2001. In today's Information Age, private sector entities are gathering an unprecedented amount of personal information about individuals, and the data is increasingly being accessed by government law enforcement officials. This government information gathering takes place outside the bounds of the Fourth Amendment, since the Supreme Court held in Smith v. Maryland and United States v. Miller that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to records held by third parties. Law enforcement officials can, …