Fourth Amendment Commons^™

Geofence Warrants: An Attack On The Fourth Amendment, Golden Gate University School Of Law

GGU Law Review Blog

Imagine a world where a king could compel the search of anybody, anywhere, and for anything. This world inspired James Madison to draft the Fourth Amendment, and is also a world we are returning to. The Fourth Amendment was created to protect against indiscriminate general warrants used in Georgian England, which subjected colonists to unrestricted invasions of privacy. Today, these general warrants come with a new name and in a new form: geofence warrants. Geofence warrants permit law enforcement to obtain the location data of every person that was in a specific geographic area where a crime occurred, in an ...

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.

The Fourth Amendment Stripped Bare: Substantiating Prisoners' Reasonable Right To Bodily Privacy, Meher Babbar

Northwestern University Law Review

Prisoners’ rights to bodily privacy under the Fourth Amendment are limited, allowing detention officials to strip-search them for contraband. The extent to which the Fourth Amendment protects prisoners, however, is uncertain. Questions regarding whether strip searches require reasonable suspicion and the manner in which officials may conduct strip searches have troubled courts for decades. In the absence of clear guidance from the Supreme Court, courts have reached inconsistent conclusions, imperiling the human rights and dignity of prisoners. This Note argues that courts should define and apply prisoners’ rights to bodily privacy with reference to international human-rights law, specifically the United ...

On The Broadness Of The Fourth Amendment, Janine Kim

SMU Law Review

This Article considers the role of property rights in defining Fourth Amendment searches. Since United States v. Jones in 2012, the Supreme Court has relied on both privacy and property to determine whether a Fourth Amendment search has occurred. But recently, many of the Justices have expressed increasing skepticism about not only the effectiveness but also the appropriateness of safeguarding privacy. The 2018 case of Carpenter v. United States, which ruled that an individual’s cell site location information is protected under the Fourth Amendment, saw all four dissenters urging a larger role for property rights in the analysis of ...

Police Perceptions, Knowledge, And Performance: Traffic Stops And The Use Of K-9 Units, Christopher D. Totten, Gang Lee, Daniel Ozment

Catholic University Law Review

This empirical (survey) study of law enforcement officers aims to shed light on police conduct and knowledge concerning traffic stops, vehicle searches and the use of canine (K-9) units. This context is particularly relevant in light of a recent United States Supreme Court case in this area, Rodriguez v. United States, which held that when the mission of a routine traffic stop has been or reasonably should have been completed (i.e., the officer has issued a traffic ticket or a warning after having checked license, registration, insurance, and/ or warrants), the officer may not in general detain the vehicle ...

Bitcoin Searches And Preserving The Third-Party Doctrine, Christine A. Cortez

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

Searches By Environmental Protection Agencies: When Is A Warrant Necessary?, David Sparks

Journal of Natural Resources & Environmental Law

No abstract provided.

Divided Court Issues Bright-Line Ruling On Fourth Amendment Seizures, Jeffrey Bellin

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Cloudy With A Chance Of Government Intrusion: The Third-Party Doctrine In The 21st Century, Steven Arango

Catholic University Law Review

Technology may be created by humans, but we are dependent on it. Look around you: what technology is near you as you read this abstract? An iPhone? A laptop? Perhaps even an Amazon Echo. What do all these devices have in common? They store data in the cloud. And this data can contain some of our most sensitive information, such as business records or medical documents.

Even if you manage this cloud storage account, the government may be able to search your data without a warrant. Federal law provides little protection for cloud stored data. And the Fourth Amendment may ...

Preview—United States V. Cooley: What Will Happen To The Thinnest Blue Line?, Jo J. Phippin

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Supreme Court of the United States ("Supreme Court") will hear oral arguments in this matter on Tuesday, March 23, 2021. This case presents the narrow issue of whether a tribal police officer has the authority to investigate and detain a non-Indian on a public right-of-way within a reservation for a suspected violation of state or federal law. The lower courts, holding that tribes have no such authority, granted James Cooley’s motion to suppress evidence. The Supreme Court must decide whether the lower courts erred in so deciding. While the issue before the Supreme Court is itself narrow, it ...

The War On Drugs: Moral Panic And Excessive Sentences, Michael Vitiello

Cleveland State Law Review

The United States’ War on Drugs has not been pretty. Moral panic has repeatedly driven policy when states and the federal government have regulated drugs. Responding to that panic, legislators have authorized severe sentences for drug offenses.

By design, Article III gives federal judges independence, in part, to protect fundamental rights against mob rule. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has often failed to protect fundamental rights in times of moral panic. For example, it eroded Fourth Amendment protections during the War on Drugs. Similarly, it failed to protect drug offenders from excessive prison sentences during the War on Drugs. This Article ...

Learning From The Past: Using Korematsu And Other Japanese Internment Cases To Provide Protections Against Immigration Detentions, Caleb Ward

Arkansas Law Review

One of the darkest periods in modern United States history is reoccurring with mixed public approval. During World War II, the United States government enacted executive orders creating a curfew, proscribing living areas, and forcing the exclusion and detention of all Japanese descendants from the West Coast. The United States justified these grievous freedom and equality violations through an increased need for national security “because we [were] at war with [Japan].” However, this perceived increased need for national security came from a fraudulent assessment showing any Japanese-American could be planning espionage or sabotage of the United States. After the war ...

Revising Reasonableness In The Cloud, Ian Walsh

Washington Law Review

Save everything—just in case––and search for it later. This is a modern mantra fueled by the ubiquity of smartphones, laptops, tablets, and free or low-cost data storage that leads users to store massive amounts of data in the cloud. But when users trust third-party cloud storage providers with private communications, they also surrender Fourth Amendment constitutional certainty. Existing statutory safeguards for these communications are lower than Fourth Amendment warrant and probable cause standards; this permits the government to seize large quantities of users’ private communications stored in the cloud with only minimal justification. Due to the revealing nature ...

The Case For Replacing The Independent Intermediary Doctrine With Proximate Cause And Fourth Amendment Review In § 1983 Civil Rights Cases, Amanda Peters

Pepperdine Law Review

Plaintiffs who file claims under § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act encounter a strange blend of civil rights, tort, and criminal procedure laws. When civil rights plaintiffs sue officers and government agencies for violations of their Fourth Amendment rights, federal courts may cut off liability using qualified immunity, but they may also use a lesser-known defense of sorts called the independent intermediate doctrine. When courts permit officers to raise both qualified immunity and the doctrine, the two defensive theories provide officers something akin to absolute immunity. The doctrine treats judges, prosecutors, grand jurors, and fact finders as superseding agents who ...

Can I Have Some Privacy?: A Look Into The Unfortunate Truth Of Pregnancy Tests Throughout Sports And The Negative Impact On Female Athletes, Hannah Rogers

Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Facial Recognition And The Fourth Amendment In The Wake Of Carpenter V. United States, Matthew Doktor

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Exclusionary Rule, And The Problem With Search And Seizure Law Under The Ohio Constitution, Corey Bushle

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

School “Safety” Measures Jump Constitutional Guardrails, Maryam Ahranjani

Seattle University Law Review

In the wake of George Floyd’s murder and efforts to achieve racial justice through systemic reform, this Article argues that widespread “security” measures in public schools, including embedded law enforcement officers, jump constitutional guardrails. These measures must be rethought in light of their negative impact on all children and in favor of more effective—and constitutionally compliant—alternatives to promote school safety. The Black Lives Matter, #DefundthePolice, #abolishthepolice, and #DefundSchoolPolice movements shine a timely and bright spotlight on how the prisonization of public schools leads to the mistreatment of children, particularly children with disabilities, boys, Black and brown children ...

The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum

Dickinson Law Review

This article enters into the modern debate between “consti- tutional departmentalists”—who contend that the executive and legislative branches share constitutional interpretive authority with the courts—and what are sometimes called “judicial supremacists.” After exploring the relevant history of political ideas, I join the modern minority of voices in the latter camp.

This is an intellectual history of two evolving political ideas—popular sovereignty and the separation of powers—which merged in the making of American judicial power, and I argue we can only understand the structural function of judicial review by bringing these ideas together into an integrated whole ...

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents