Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Procedure
The Search And Seizure Of Private Papers: Fourth And Fifth Amendment Considerations, Steven Shiffrin
The Search And Seizure Of Private Papers: Fourth And Fifth Amendment Considerations, Steven Shiffrin
Steven H. Shiffrin
There is a recognizable factual distinction between the search and seizure of private papers and the search and seizure of non-documentary items. It is difficult, however, to decide when such a distinction should assume constitutional dimensions. Specifically, are there circumstances under which private papers should be immune from search and seizure? In a 1967 landmark case, Warden v. Hayden, the United States Supreme Court raised doubts concerning the continued validity of decades of settled law on this important issue. Warden's reopening of this problem aroused the curiosity of commentators, spurred new policy arguments in the American Law Institute, divided the …
Addressing The Harm Of Total Surveillance: A Reply To Professor Neil Richards, Danielle Citron, David Gray
Addressing The Harm Of Total Surveillance: A Reply To Professor Neil Richards, Danielle Citron, David Gray
David C. Gray
In his insightful article The Dangers of Surveillance, 126 HARV. L. REV. 1934 (2013), Neil Richards offers a framework for evaluating the implications of government surveillance programs that is centered on protecting "intellectual privacy." Although we share his interest in recognizing and protecting privacy as a condition of personal and intellectual development, we worry in this essay that, as an organizing principle for policy, "intellectual privacy" is too narrow and politically fraught. Drawing on other work, we therefore recommend that judges, legislators, and executives focus instead on limiting the potential of surveillance technologies to effect programs of broad and indiscriminate …
The Davis Good Faith Rule And Getting Answers To The Questions Jones Left Open, Susan Freiwald
The Davis Good Faith Rule And Getting Answers To The Questions Jones Left Open, Susan Freiwald
Susan Freiwald
The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Jones clearly established that use of GPS tracking surveillance constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. But the Court left many other questions unanswered about the nature and scope of the constitutional privacy right in location data. A review of lower court decisions in the wake of Jones reveals that, rather than begin to answer the questions that Jones left open, courts are largely avoiding substantive Fourth Amendment analysis of location data privacy. Instead, they are finding that officers who engaged in GPS tracking and related surveillance operated in good faith, based …
Cell Phone Location Data And The Fourth Amendment: A Question Of Law, Not Fact, Susan Freiwald
Cell Phone Location Data And The Fourth Amendment: A Question Of Law, Not Fact, Susan Freiwald
Susan Freiwald
In a significant ruling in the fall of 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the government’s claim that it could compel cell phone service providers to disclose customer records that indicate the cell towers with which a cell phone has communicated (cell phone location information or CSLI) without obtaining a warrant based on probable cause. In a break with past decisions, the court rejected application of a “third party rule,” under which cell phone users are seen to assume the risk that their providers will disclose location data without the protections of a warrant requirement. The court, however, …