Privacy Law Commons^™

Giving The Fourth Amendment Meaning: Creating An Adversarial Warrant Proceeding To Protect From Unreasonable Searches And Seizures, Ben Mordechai-Strongin

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

For at least the past 40 years, police and prosecutors have had free reign in conducting illegal searches and seizures nominally barred by the Fourth Amendment. The breadth of exceptions to the warrant requirement, the lax interpretation of probable cause, and especially the “good faith” doctrine announced in U.S. v. Leon have led to severe violations of privacy rights, trauma to those wrongly searched or seized, and a court system overburdened by police misconduct cases. Most scholars analyzing the issue agree that the rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment—to be free from unreasonable search and seizure—have been severely eroded or …

“Bang!”: Shotspotter Gunshot Detection Technology, Predictive Policing, And Measuring Terry’S Reach, Harvey Gee

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

ShotSpotter technology is a rapid identification and response system used in ninety American cities that is designed to detect gunshots and dispatch police. ShotSpotter is one of many powerful surveillance tools used by local police departments to purportedly help fight crime, but they often do so at the expense of infringing upon privacy rights and civil liberties. This Article expands the conversation about ShotSpotter technology considerably by examining the adjacent Fourth Amendment issues emanating from its use. For example, law enforcement increasingly relies on ShotSpotter to create reasonable suspicion where it does not exist. In practice, the use of ShotSpotter …

Another Katz Moment?: Privacy, Property, And A Dna Database, Claire Mena

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The understanding of these words seems to shift as new technologies emerge. As law enforcement’s arsenal of surveillance techniques has grown to include GPS tracking, cell phones, and cell site location information (CSLI), the Supreme Court has applied Fourth Amendment protections to these modern tools. Law enforcement continues to use one pervasive surveillance technique without limitations: the routine collection of DNA. In 2013, the Supreme Court in Maryland v. King held that law enforcement may routinely …

Police Use Of Cctv Surveillance: Constitutional Implications And Proposed Regulations, Gary C. Robb

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This article evaluates the constitutionality of CCTV "searches." Part I discusses the present uses being made of closed circuit technology and evaluates the merits of the CCTV surveillance system. The critical policy trade-off is the system's effectiveness in combatting crime against the resulting loss of privacy to individual citizens.

Part II considers the constitutional implications of CCTV use in terms of three major doctrines: the Fourth Amendment prohibition against "unreasonable searches and seizures"; the constitutional right of privacy; and the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and association. This part briefly summarizes the state of the law concerning these constitutional …

The Concept Of Privacy And The Fourth Amendment, Steven C. Douse

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article attempts at a minimum to offer a common background and frame of reference for defining and comparing myriad facets of the law. If successful, they furnish a model for the integration of these many facets. This inquiry begins with an examination of the proposition that the essence of the fourth amendment is protection of a right of privacy. The concept of privacy is then defined and elaborated, both without and within the constitutional context. These conclusions are further extended in an exploration of mechanisms for defining the invasions and protection of fourth amendment privacy.