Fourth Amendment Commons^™

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 …