Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
A World Without Privacy: Why Property Does Not Define The Limits Of The Right Against Unreasonable Searches And Seizures, Sherry F. Colb
A World Without Privacy: Why Property Does Not Define The Limits Of The Right Against Unreasonable Searches And Seizures, Sherry F. Colb
Michigan Law Review
Imagine for a moment that it is the year 2020. An American company has developed a mind-reading device, called the "brain wave recorder" ("BWR"). The BWR is a highly sensitive instrument that detects electrical impulses from any brain within ten feet of the machine. Though previously thought impossible, the BWR can discern the following information about the target individual: (1) whether he or she is happy, sad, anxious, depressed, or irritable; (2) whether he or she is even slightly sexually aroused; (3) whether he or she is taking any medication (and if so, what the medication is); (4) if a …
Katz Is Dead. Long Live Katz, Peter P. Swire
Katz Is Dead. Long Live Katz, Peter P. Swire
Michigan Law Review
Katz v. United States is the king of Supreme Court surveillance cases. Written in 1967, it struck down the earlier regime of property rules, declaring that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places." The concurrence by Justice Harlan announced the new regime - court-issued warrants are required where there is an infringement on a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy." Together with the companion case Berger v. New York, Katz has stood for a grand conception of the Fourth Amendment as a bulwark against wiretaps and other emerging forms of surveillance. Professor Orin Kerr, in his excellent article, shows that …
The Fourth Amendment And New Technologies: Constitutional Myths And The Case For Caution, Orin S. Kerr
The Fourth Amendment And New Technologies: Constitutional Myths And The Case For Caution, Orin S. Kerr
Michigan Law Review
To one who values federalism, federal preemption of state law may significantly threaten the autonomy and core regulatory authority of The Supreme Court recently considered whether a1mmg an infrared thermal imaging device at a suspect's home can violate the Fourth Amendment. Kyllo v. United States announced a new and comprehensive rule: the government's warrantless use of senseenhancing technology that is "not in general use" violates the Fourth Amendment when it yields "details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion." Justice Scalia's majority opinion acknowledged that the Court's rule was not needed to resolve the case …