Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons^™

Recording A New Frontier In Evidence-Gathering: Police Body-Worn Cameras And Privacy Doctrines In Washington State, Katie Farden

Seattle University Law Review

This Note contributes to a growing body of work that weighs the gains that communities stand to make from police body-worn cameras against the tangle of concerns about how cameras may infringe on individual liberties and tread on existing privacy laws. While police departments have quickly implemented cameras over the past few years, laws governing the use of the footage body-worn cameras capture still trail behind. Notably, admissibility rules for footage from an officer’s camera, and evidence obtained with the help of that footage, remain on the horizon. This Note focuses exclusively on Washington State’s laws. It takes a clinical …

Police Body Worn Cameras And Privacy: Retaining Benefits While Reducing Public Concerns, Richard Lin

Duke Law & Technology Review

Recent high-profile incidents of police misconduct have led to calls for increased police accountability. One proposed reform is to equip police officers with body worn cameras, which provide more reliable evidence than eyewitness accounts. However, such cameras may pose privacy concerns for individuals who are recorded, as the footage may fall under open records statutes that would require the footage to be released upon request. Furthermore, storage of video data is costly, and redaction of video for release is time-consuming. While exempting all body camera video from release would take care of privacy issues, it would also prevent the public …

Cell Phone Searches After Riley: Establishing Probable Cause And Applying Search Warrant Exceptions, Erica L. Danielsen

Pace Law Review

Part I of this note discusses the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizures and its probable cause requirement. The Fourth Amendment’s text remains the same since its enactment. However, interpretation of the Fourth Amendment continues to evolve in order to stay current with society. Interpretation of the Fourth Amendment also varies based on state constitutional law since states can provide its citizens with greater protection than the United States Constitution. This is why the United States Supreme Court, federal district courts, and state courts have all undergone thorough Fourth Amendment analyses when applying the true meaning of the …

Riley V. California And The Stickiness Principle, Steven I. Friedland

Duke Law & Technology Review

In Fourth Amendment decisions, different concepts, facts and assumptions about reality are often tethered together by vocabulary and fact, creating a ‘Stickiness Principle.’ In particular, form and function historically were considered indistinguishable, not as separate factors. For example, “containers” carried things, “watches” told time, and “phones” were used to make voice calls. Advancing technology, though, began to fracture this identity and the broader Stickiness Principle. In June 2014, Riley v. California and its companion case, United States v. Wurie, offered the Supreme Court an opportunity to begin untethering form and function and dismantling the Stickiness Principle. Riley presented the question …

Rise Of The Mosaic Theory: Implications For Cell Site Location Tracking By Law Enforcement, 32 J. Marshall J. Info. Tech. & Privacy L. 236 (2016), Lance Selva, William Shulman, Robert Rumsey

UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law

The authors examine the unique legal and privacy implications that cell site location information tracking by law enforcement poses for current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Following a brief explanation of how cell phone tracking works, their discussion is directed to the concept of privacy under the Fourth Amendment both prior to and following the seminal Supreme Court decision of Katz v. United States (1967), including a review of the Supreme Court’s historical treatment of tracking devices post-Katz. Consideration is then directed to the United States. v. Maynard (2010) decision, where the court employed the “mosaic” theory in a Fourth …

Rfid Implementation: Testing In Prisons And Parolees For The Greater Good, 33 J. Marshall J. Info. Tech. & Privacy L. 22 (2016), Mirko Akrap

UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law

No abstract provided.

Cyber Force: The International Legal Implications Of The Communication Security Establishment's Expanded Mandate Under Bill C-59, Leah West

Canadian Journal of Law and Technology

Canada is about to join the ranks of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea; countries with a declared policy and authorized program of state-sponsored cyber attacks. In the summer of 2017, the Liberal Government introduced Bill C-59 An Act 2 Respecting National Security Matters. The bill, if passed, represents the most significant overhaul to Canadian national security institutions since the establishment of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) as a separate organization from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in 1984. One component of this sweeping reform is the introduction of The Communications Security Establishment Act (CSE Act or the …

Riley V. California And The Beginning Of The End For The Third-Party Search Doctrine, David A. Harris

Articles

In Riley v. California, the Supreme Court decided that when police officers seize a smart phone, they may not search through its contents -- the data found by looking into the call records, calendars, pictures and so forth in the phone -- without a warrant. In the course of the decision, the Court said that the rule applied not just to data that was physically stored on the device, but also to data stored "in the cloud" -- in remote sites -- but accessed through the device. This piece of the decision may, at last, allow a re-examination of …

Laird V. Tatum And Article Iii Standing In Surveillance Cases, Jeffrey L. Vagle

All Faculty Scholarship

Plaintiffs seeking to challenge government surveillance programs have faced long odds in federal courts, due mainly to a line of Supreme Court cases that have set a very high bar to Article III standing in these cases. The origins of this jurisprudence can be directly traced to Laird v. Tatum, a 1972 case where the Supreme Court considered the question of who could sue the government over a surveillance program, holding in a 5-4 decision that chilling effects arising “merely from the individual’s knowledge” of likely government surveillance did not constitute adequate injury to meet Article III standing requirements.

Lawn Signs: A Fourth Amendment For Constitutional Curmudgeons, Stephen E. Henderson, Andrew G. Ferguson

Stephen E Henderson

Fourth Amendment Time Machines (And What They Might Say About Police Body Cameras), Stephen E. Henderson

Stephen E Henderson