Fourth Amendment 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 …

The Fourth Amendment's Constitutional Home, Gerald S. Dickinson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The home enjoys omnipresent status in American constitutional law. The Bill of Rights, peculiarly, has served as the central refuge for special protections to the home. This constitutional sanctuary has elicited an intriguing textual and doctrinal puzzle. A distinct thread has emerged that runs through the first five amendments delineating the home as a zone where rights emanating from speech, smut, gods, guns, soldiers, searches, sex, and self-incrimination enjoy special protections. However, the thread inexplicably unravels upon arriving at takings. There, the constitutional text omits and the Supreme Court’s doctrine excludes a special zone of safeguards to the home. This …

Geofence Warrants: Geolocating The Fourth Amendment, A. Reed Mcleod

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Note begins by focusing on the technology and procedure of geofence warrants in Part I. Because an understanding of both the technology and procedure is ultimately required to make any headway in later legal analysis, this step is necessary. The heart of the legal analysis is undertaken in Parts II and III.

In Part II, this Note argues that law enforcement requests for location data require a warrant: either because of the expectation of privacy in location data proposed by cases such as Carpenter v. United States or because some courts have found that Carpenter's holding must mean …

Frankly, It's A Mess: Requiring Courts To Transparently "Redline" Affidavits In The Face Of Franks Challenges, Diana Bibb

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Part I provides a brief overview of the Fourth Amendment, probable cause, and the exclusionary rule. Part II discusses Franks v. Delaware, the development of the challenge’s framework, and subsequent expansions to the doctrine made by the lower courts. Next, Part III argues that, despite the aforementioned expansions, courts have consistently weakened Franks. Notably, the Supreme Court refuses to consider Franks issues, including the multitude of splits over which standard of review is applicable. Moreover, some circuits have developed their own minute rules that have chiseled away at the effectiveness of a Franks challenge. Part IV proposes that …

Fitbit Data And The Fourth Amendment: Why The Collection Of Data From A Fitbit Constitutes A Search And Should Require A Warrant In Light Of Carpenter V. United States, Alxis Rodis

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Preventing Parkland: A Workable Fourth Amendment Standard For Searching Juveniles' Smartphones Amid School Threats In A Post-Parkland World, Andrew Mueller

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

On February 14, 2018, Nikolas Cruz, age nineteen, went to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School campus in Parkland, Florida, armed with an AR-15 rifle. He opened fire, killing seventeen students. His unspeakable actions culminated in an attack, which eclipsed the 1999 Columbine High School Massacre to become the deadliest school shooting at a high school in American history. In the immediate months following this still-recent tragedy, schools across the United States were flooded with “copycat” threats of violence. Terroristic threat charges levied against juveniles have likewise skyrocketed.

These recent events have resulted in new and burdensome pressures for schools …

The Common Law Endures In The Fourth Amendment, George C. Thomas Iii

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The text of the Fourth Amendment provides no guidance about what makes a search unreasonable or when warrants are required to make a search reasonable. The Supreme Court has had to craft a doctrine based on intuition, policy goals, and halfhearted stabs at history. This Article argues that the Court’s Fourth Amendment doctrine is stable when it roughly tracks the eighteenth-century common law protection of property, privacy, and liberty. When the Court has sought to provide more protection than the common law provided, the result has been an erratic doctrine that has gradually receded almost back to the common law …

A Tale Of Two Clauses: Search And Seizure, Establishment Of Religion, And Constitutional Reason, Perry Dane

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article dissects two developments in widely separate areas of American constitutional law—the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test for the Fourth Amendment’s Search and Seizure Clause and the “endorsement” test for the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. These two stories might seem worlds apart, and they have not previously been systematically examined together. Nevertheless, the Article argues that they have in common at least three important symptoms of our legal culture’s deep malaise. These three phenomena occur in other contexts, too, but they appear with special clarity and a stark cumulative force in the two stories on which this Article focuses. …

Carpenter V. United States And The Fourth Amendment: The Best Way Forward, Stephen E. Henderson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

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 Court …

Feeding The Machine: Policing, Crime Data, & Algorithms, Elizabeth E. Joh

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Unreasonable Rise Of Reasonable Suspicion: Terrorist Watchlists And Terry V. Ohio, Jeffrey Kahn

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Terry v. Ohio’s “reasonable suspicion” test was created in the context of domestic law enforcement, but it did not remain there. This Essay examines the effect of transplanting this test into a new context: the world of terrorist watchlists. In this new context, reasonable suspicion is the standard used to authorize the infringement on liberty that often results from being watchlisted. But nothing else from the case that created that standard remains the same. The government official changes from a local police officer to an anonymous member of the intelligence community. The purpose changes from crime prevention to counterterrorism. …

Private Actors, Corporate Data And National Security: What Assistance Do Tech Companies Owe Law Enforcement?, Caren Morrison

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

When the government investigates a crime, do citizens have a duty to assist? This question was raised in the struggle between Apple and the FBI over whether the agency could compel Apple to defeat its own password protections on the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooters. That case was voluntarily dismissed as moot when the government found a way of accessing the data on the phone, but the issue remains unresolved.

Because of advances in technology, software providers and device makers have been able to develop almost impenetrable protection for their customers’ information, effectively locking law enforcement out …

The Fourth Amendment Disclosure Doctrines, Monu Bedi

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The third party and public disclosure doctrines (together the “disclosure doctrines”) are long-standing hurdles to Fourth Amendment protection. These doctrines have become increasingly relevant to assessing the government’s use of recent technologies such as data mining, drone surveillance, and cell site location data. It is surprising then that both the Supreme Court and scholars, at times, have associated them together as expressing one principle. It turns out that each relies on unique foundational triggers and does not stand or fall with the other. This Article tackles this issue and provides a comprehensive topology for analyzing the respective contours of each …

Horizontal Cybersurveillance Through Sentiment Analysis, Margaret Hu

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Essay describes emerging big data technologies that facilitate horizontal cybersurveillance. Horizontal cybersurveillance makes possible what has been termed as “sentiment analysis.” Sentiment analysis can be described as opinion mining and social movement forecasting. Through sentiment analysis, mass cybersurveillance technologies can be deployed to detect potential terrorism and state conflict, predict protest and civil unrest, and gauge the mood of populations and subpopulations. Horizontal cybersurveillance through sentiment analysis has the likely result of chilling expressive and associational freedoms, while at the same time risking mass data seizures and searches. These programs, therefore, must be assessed as adversely impacting a combination …

Notice And Standing In The Fourth Amendment: Searches Of Personal Data, Jennifer Daskal

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In at least two recent cases, courts have rejected service providers’ capacity to raise Fourth Amendment claims on behalf of their customers. These holdings rely on longstanding Supreme Court doctrine establishing a general rule against third parties asserting the Fourth Amendment rights of others. However, there is a key difference between these two recent cases and those cases on which the doctrine rests. The relevant Supreme Court doctrine stems from situations in which someone could take action to raise the Fourth Amendment claim, even if the particular third-party litigant could not. In the situations presented by the recent cases, by …

Binary Searches And The Central Meaning Of The Fourth Amendment, Lawrence Rosenthal

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Deadly Drones, Due Process, And The Fourth Amendment, William Funk

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Administrative Searches, Technology And Personal Privacy, Russell L. Weaver

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Seizing A Cell Phone Incident To Arrest: Data Extraction Devices, Faraday Bags, Or Aluminum Foil As A Solution To The Warrantless Cell Phone Search Problem, Adam M. Gershowitz

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Culpability, Deterrence, And The Exclusionary Rule, Kit Kinports

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article discusses the Supreme Court’s use of the concepts of culpability and deterrence in its Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, in particular, in the opinions applying the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The contemporary Court sees deterrence as the exclusionary rule’s sole function, and the Article begins by taking the Court at its word, evaluating its exclusionary rule case law on its own terms. Drawing on three different theories of deterrence—economic rational choice theory, organizational theory, and the expressive account of punishment—the Article analyzes the mechanics by which the exclusionary rule deters unconstitutional searches and questions the Court’s recent decision …

Constitutional Limits On The Right Of Government Investigations To Interview And Examine Alleged Victims Of Child Abuse Or Neglect, Teri Dobbins Baxter

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Investigating allegations of child abuse or neglect presents unique challenges, particularly if parents or guardians are the alleged perpetrators. Those accused of harming the children are in a position to prevent the victims from getting access to the help they need to escape their abuser(s). The courts have not clearly defined the federal constitutional boundaries of searches and seizures in this context. The Supreme Court, in particular, has not weighed in on the constitutionality of warrantless searches and seizures in connection with abuse and neglect investigations. This lack of Supreme Court guidance has led to unpredictable and sometimes conflicting opinions …

The Real Rules Of "Search" Interpretations, Luke M. Milligan

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Supreme Court tells us that a Fourth Amendment “search” is a matter of “reasonable expectations of privacy.” Scholars meanwhile debate “search” on the axes of value, doctrine, institutionalism, interpretation, and judicial politics. Yet neither prevailing judicial doctrine nor normative academic discourse has had much impact on the Court’s actual “search” interpretations. This article suggests that this static between “paper” rules and “real” rules (and, more generally, normative prescriptions and judicial decisionmaking) is a function of a deep constraint on the judiciary’s capacity to form “search” doctrine in free accordance with evolving juridical and policy norms. This constraint is one …

Faulty Foundations: How The False Analogy To Routine Fingerprinting Undermines The Argument For Arrestee Dna Sampling, Corey Preston

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Georgia V. Randolph, The Red-Headed Stepchild Of An Ugly Family: Why Third Party Consent Search Doctrine Is An Unfortunate Fourth Amendment Development That Should Be Restrained, Aubrey H. Brown

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Sense-Enhanced Searches And The Irrelevance Of The Fourth Amendment, David E. Steinberg

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Constitutional Infirmity Of Warrantless Nsa Surveillance: The Abuse Of Presidential Power And The Injury To The Fourth Amendment, Robert Bloom, William J. Dunn

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In the past year, there have been many revelations about the tactics used by the Bush administration to prosecute its war on terrorism. These stories involve the exploitation of technologies that allow the government, with the cooperation of phone companies and financial institutions, to access phone and financial records. This Article focuses on the revelation and widespread criticism of the Bush administration's operation of a warrantless electronic surveillance program to monitor international phone calls and e-mails that originate or terminate with a United States party. The powerful and secret National Security Agency heads the program and leverages its significant intelligence …

Turning A Government Search Into A Permanent Power: Thornton V. United States And The "Progressive Distortion" Of Search Incident To Arrest, George M. Dery Iii, Michael J. Hernandez

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

A Law Student In The Supreme Court: United States V. Drayton And The Future Of Consent Search Analysis, Dennis J. Callahan

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Righteous Shooting, Unreasonable Seizure? The Relevance Of An Officer's Pre-Seizure Conduct In An Excessive Force Claim, Aaron Kimber

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Affecting Eternity: The Court's Confused Lesson In Board Of Education V. Earls, George M. Dery Iii

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In Board of Education v. Earls, the US. Supreme Court found the random drug testing of schoolchildren who participated in extracurricular activities to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. In this Article, Professor Dery argues that this latest extension of the special needs doctrine is both patronizing to student privacy interests and inconsistent with the Court's previous limitation of suspicionless searches in New Jersey v. T.L.O. and Chandler v. Miller. Professor Dery criticizes the Court's Earls decision as a confused lesson in constitutional law, abandoning the very fundamentals of the Fourth Amendment.