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 …

From “He Said, She Said” To “He Said, She-And-Her Iphone-Said”: Florida’S All-Party Consent Requirement Needs An Update, Sarah Morgado

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Monitor Whatsapp Conversations In Palestinian Legislation And Related Guarantees, Abdullah Deeb Mahmoud

AAU Journal of Business and Law مجلة جامعة العين للأعمال والقانون

Monitoring electronic conversations in general, including WhatsApp conversations, is an investigation that falls within the jurisdiction and control of the Public Prosecution. Obtaining the approval of a Magistrate’s Court judge to conduct the observation is considered one of the basic conditions for the validity of the observation procedure. It is of the importance of electronic conversations, which have become legally recognized electronic evidence of crimes of all kinds, as long as the proper legal path that the Palestinian legislator has been followed in obtaining them is followed, the records may be audible, read, or visible, and in particular Lee is …

Privacy, Eavesdropping, And Wiretapping Across The United States: Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy And Judicial Discretion, Carol M. Bast

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

One-party consent and all-party consent eavesdropping and wiretapping statutes are two broad pathways for legislation to deal with the problem of secret taping and some states protect conversation under state constitutions. Whether a conversation is protected against being taped as a private conversation is often gauged by the reasonable expectation of privacy standard. Judges in both all-party consent and one-party consent jurisdictions have had to use their leeway under the reasonable expectation of privacy standard to arrive at what at the time seemed to be the most appropriate solution, perhaps in doing so creating a case law exception.

County Court, Westchester County, People V. Gant, Albert V. Messina Jr.

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Weatherford V. Bursey: "Surreptitious Invasion… Into The Legal Camp Of The Defense", Paul H. Voss

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Research Project, David J. Agatstein

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Limits Of The Federal Wiretap Act's Ability To Protect Against Wi-Fi Sniffing, Mani Potnuru

Michigan Law Review

Adoption of Wi-Fi wireless technology continues to see explosive growth. However many users still operate their home Wi-Fi networks in unsecured mode or use publicly available unsecured Wi-Fi networks, thus exposing their communications to the dangers of "packet sniffing," a technique used for eavesdropping on a network. Some have argued that communications over unsecured Wi-Fi networks are "readily accessible to the general public" and that such communications are therefore excluded from the broad protections of the Federal Wiretap Act against intentional interception of electronic communications. This Note examines the Federal Wiretap Act and argues that the current Act's treatment of …

Eavesdropping Under New York And Federal Law: How New York Is Departing From Long-Standing Interpretations Mirroring Federal Law - People V. Rabb, Bailey Ince

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Text Offenders: Privacy, Text Messages, And The Failure Of The Title Iii Minimization Requirement, Seth M. Hyatt

Vanderbilt Law Review

For the past forty years, theory and practice in electronic surveillance have enjoyed an uneasy coexistence. In theory, under ("Title III"), government agents must use wire and electronic taps sparingly, and only under strict judicial supervision. In practice, however, federal courts have recognized countless loopholes and exceptions, leading critics to wonder whether Title III meaningfully limits state investigatory power.

Nowhere is this tension more apparent than in the context of "minimization." Under Title III, government agents conducting electronic surveillance must "minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception under this chapter." They must not listen in on any …

The Fourth Amendment In The Hallway: Do Tenants Have A Constitutionally Protected Privacy Interest In The Locked Common Areas Of Their Apartment Buildings?, Sean M. Lewis

Michigan Law Review

One afternoon, a police officer spots a man driving a Cadillac through a run·down neighborhood. His interest piqued, the officer decides to follow the vehicle. The Cadillac soon comes to rest in front of an apartment building, and the driver, Jimmy Barrios-Moriera, removes a shopping bag from the trunk and enters the building. The moment Barrios-Moriera disappears within the doorway, the officer sprints after him because he knows that the door to the apartment building will automatically lock when it closes. He manages to catch the door just in time and rushes in. Barrios-Moriera is already halfway up a flight …

Nova Law Review Full Issue Volume 21, Issue 1

Nova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure: People V. Bialostok

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Politics And Law In The Control Of Local Surveillance, Paul G. Chevigny

Cornell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Executive Order 12,333: An Assessment Of The Validity Of Warrantless National Security Searches, David S. Eggert

Duke Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Tollett V. State, 272 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1973), Florida State University Law Review

Florida State University Law Review

Criminal Law-WIRETAPPING-CONSENTING PARTY TO CONVERSATION RECORDED BY POLICE WITHOUT WARRANT REQUIRED TO VERIFY AT TRIAL CONSENT TO RECORDING PRIOR TO ITS ADMISSION AGAINST OTHER PARTY TO CONVERSATION.

The Legitimation Of Electronic Eavesdropping: The Politics Of "Law And Order", Herman Schwartz

Michigan Law Review

This Article will examine some constitutional considerations raised by wiretapping and eavesdropping in light of recent Supreme Court decisions, the probable extent of such activity, the limitations imposed upon it by title III and the ABA Standards, and the arguments for the "necessity" of electronic surveillance. Finally, a few jaundiced comments will be offered about legislative and judicial lawmaking in the field of criminal justice, particularly in a time of crisis.

Fourth Amendment Limitations On Eavesdropping And Wire-Tapping, David H. Hines

Cleveland State Law Review

The subject of eavesdropping, wiretapping, and electronic surveillance has induced many legal writers to comment on the law and urge legislative changes.This paper will analyze the constitutional aspects of eavesdropping as well as the common law concerning eavesdropping as it exists today.

An Ex Parte Order May Not Serve The Function Of A Search Warrant Under The Fourth Amendment To Authorize A Physical Intrusion In Connection With A "Search" For Conversations--People V. Grossman, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

There was probable cause to believe that defendant Scandifia was implicated in a larceny of jewelry by false pretenses. Pursuant to section 813-a of the New York Code of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court in New York County issued an ex parte order authorizing the installation of an eavesdropping device in a service station owned by Scandifia. Shortly thereafter, police broke into the station's private office and installed a microphone. Conversations were overheard which indicated that defendant Grossman had in his possession two pistols received from Scandifia. An affidavit setting forth these conversations supplied the sole probable cause for a …

Evidence-Privilege-Confidential Communications Between Husband And Wife, James I. Huston

Michigan Law Review

Husband sued for divorce alleging that wife drank excessively and humiliated him in public by her conduct, and that she continually made false and profane accusations designed to make his life unbearable. As proof of the latter charge, plaintiff was allowed to introduce in evidence a wire recording of conversations between plaintiff and defendant in their bedroom. Plaintiff's son by a previous marriage had, by prearrangement with plaintiff, installed in their bedroom a microphone connected to a wire-recorder in the son's adjoining bedroom, with which recordings were made of four separate conversations between plaintiff and defendant. The recordings substantiated plaintiff's …