Fourth Amendment Commons^™

The Supreme Digital Divide, Mary Graw Leary

Scholarly Articles

Society has long struggled with the meaning of privacy in a modern world. This struggle is not new. With the advent of modern technology and information sharing, however, the challenges have become more complex. Socially, Americans seek to both protect their private lives, and also to utilize technology to connect with the world. Commercially, industries seek to obtain information from individuals, often without their consent, and sell it to the highest bidder. As technology has advanced, the ability of other individuals, institutions, and governments to encroach upon this privacy has strengthened. Nowhere is this tension between individual privacy rights and …

Technologically Enhanced Visual Surveillance And The Fourth Amendment: Sophistication, Availability And The Expectation Of Privacy, Clifford S. Fishman

Scholarly Articles

Since 1983, however, seven Supreme Court decisions have focused at least in part upon application of the Fourth Amendment to technological enhancement of, or technological substitution for, visual surveillance: United States v. Dunn and Texas v. Brown (artificial illumination); United States v. Knotts and United States v. Karo (electronic tracking devices); California v. Ciraolo9 and Florida v. Riley (aerial surveillance); and Dow Chemical Co. v. United States (image-magnifying aerial photography). Reaction to many of these decisions has been highly critical.

In six of the seven cases, investigators refrained from intruding physically into a location protected by the Fourth Amendment. The …

Interception Of Communications In Exigent Circumstances: The Fourth Amendment, Federal Legislation, And The United States Department Of Justice, Clifford S. Fishman

Scholarly Articles

Part I briefly reviews basic Fourth Amendment case law regulating searches and seizures, summarizes the exigent circumstances doctrine, and discusses the applicability of that doctrine to electronic surveillance of communications. Part II outlines Title III's requirements for a "standard" (non-emergency, non-roving) interception order, including what the application and order must contain, and how such an order must be executed. Part III studies the emergency surveillance provision of Title III and reviews Justice Department policies and practices in implementing that provision. Part IV analyzes the new roving intercept provision, discusses its constitutionality, and looks at some practical problems that may arise …

Electronic Tracking Devices And The Fourth Amendment: Knotts, Karo, And The Questions Still Unanswered, Clifford S. Fishman

Scholarly Articles

This article will examine the Knotts and Karo decisions, analyze the unanswered questions relating to the use of electronic tracking devices, and outline legislation that might best resolve those questions and strike a proper balance between the often conflicting values of individual privacy and effective law enforcement.

Pen Registers And Privacy: Risks, Expectations, And The Nullification Of Congressional Intent, Clifford S. Fishman

Scholarly Articles

In United States v. New York Telephone Co. the Supreme Court first ruled that an ordinary search warrant sufficed to authorize law enforcement use of a pen register. Additionally, the Court ruled that a federal district judge possessed the authority to include within the search warrant an order compelling a telephone company to assist the government by installing a pen register on the targeted telephone.

In Smith v. Maryland, the Court considered the legality of pen register surveillance conducted by a telephone company pursuant to an informal police request, that is, without a warrant or other court order. In holding …

The Minimization Requirement In Electronic Surveillance: Title Iii, The Fourth Amendment, And The Dread Scott Decision, Clifford S. Fishman

Scholarly Articles

This article addresses the problems raised by the Title III minimization requirement with particular emphasis on the Supreme Court's decision in Scott. Section I outlines the provisions of Title III that govern the issuance of eavesdropping warrants and the use of derivative evidence. Section II discusses the minimization provision and the definitional problems it presents. Section III analyzes judicial treatment of the minimization provision in light of Scott, and factors that have been held to affect a monitoring agent's ability to minimize interceptions. Section IV discusses judicial approaches to minimization litigation with respect to the problems of standing, guidelines for …

The Interception Of Communications Without A Court Order: Title Iii, Consent, And The Expectation Of Privacy, Clifford S. Fishman

Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.