Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Privacy (3)
- Big data (2)
- Fourth amendment (2)
- Policing (2)
- Analytics (1)
-
- Anxiety (1)
- Artificial intelligence (1)
- Automation (1)
- Carpenter (1)
- Cell site location (1)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- Criminal procedure (1)
- Democratic theory (1)
- Double jeopardy (1)
- Dual sovereign (1)
- Exclusionary Rule (1)
- Fifth amendment (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Judgment (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Jury (1)
- Miranda (1)
- Political theory (1)
- Search (1)
- Sentencing (1)
- Surveillance (1)
- Third party doctrine (1)
- Use Restrictions (1)
- Use-Restrictions (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Carpenter V. United States And The Fourth Amendment: The Best Way Forward, Stephen E. Henderson
Carpenter V. United States And The Fourth Amendment: The Best Way Forward, Stephen E. Henderson
Stephen E Henderson
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 …
Fourth Amendment Anxiety, Stephen E. Henderson, Kiel Brennan-Marquez
Fourth Amendment Anxiety, Stephen E. Henderson, Kiel Brennan-Marquez
Stephen E Henderson
In Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016), the Supreme Court broke new Fourth Amendment ground by establishing that law enforcement’s collection of information can be cause for “anxiety,” meriting constitutional protection, even if subsequent uses of the information are tightly restricted. This change is significant. While the Court has long recognized the reality that police cannot always be trusted to follow constitutional rules, Birchfield changes how that concern is implemented in Fourth Amendment law, and importantly, in a manner that acknowledges the new realities of data-driven policing.
Beyond offering a careful reading of Birchfield, this Article has two goals. …
Artificial Intelligence And Role-Reversible Judgment, Stephen E. Henderson, Kiel Brennan-Marquez
Artificial Intelligence And Role-Reversible Judgment, Stephen E. Henderson, Kiel Brennan-Marquez
Stephen E Henderson
As intelligent machines begin more generally outperforming human experts, why should humans remain ‘in the loop’ of decision-making? One common answer focuses on outcomes: relying on intuition and experience, humans are capable of identifying interpretive errors—sometimes disastrous errors—that elude machines. Though plausible today, this argument will wear thin as technology evolves.
Here, we seek out sturdier ground: a defense of human judgment that focuses on the normative integrity of decision-making. Specifically, we propose an account of democratic equality as ‘role-reversibility.’ In a democracy, those tasked with making decisions should be susceptible, reciprocally, to the impact of decisions; there ought to …
Brief Of Amici Curiae Criminal Procedure Professors In Gamble V. United States, No. 17-646, Stephen E. Henderson, George C. Thomas Iii, Michael J.Z. Mannheimer, Kiel Brennan-Marquez
Brief Of Amici Curiae Criminal Procedure Professors In Gamble V. United States, No. 17-646, Stephen E. Henderson, George C. Thomas Iii, Michael J.Z. Mannheimer, Kiel Brennan-Marquez
Stephen E Henderson
The Fifth Amendment guarantees that, “No person shall be ... subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” Yet that is precisely what happened to Terance Martez Gamble. The State of Alabama prosecuted and convicted him for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Subsequently, the United States initiated a second prosecution for what all parties have assumed is definitionally the same offense, yielding a second conviction. That second, duplicative prosecution and conviction violated the letter and spirit of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
As a matter of the Framer’s understanding, as a matter …
A Few Criminal Justice Big Data Rules, Stephen E. Henderson
A Few Criminal Justice Big Data Rules, Stephen E. Henderson
Stephen E Henderson
As with most new things, the big data revolution in criminal justice has historic antecedents—indeed, a 1965 Presidential Commission called for some of the same data analysis that police departments and courts are today developing and implementing. But there is no doubt we are on the precipice of a criminal justice data revolution, and it is a good time to take stock and to begin developing guidelines so that, as much as possible, criminal justice systems might reap the benefits and avoid the pitfalls of this newly data-centric world. In that spirit, I propose ten high-level rules to guide criminal …