Fourth Amendment Commons^™

Big Data Prosecution And Brady, Andrew Ferguson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Prosecutors are joining the big data revolution, adopting “intelligence-driven” strategies to target crime patterns. Centralized big data systems now track offenders, places, and groups allowing prosecutors to link crimes by time, place, associations, or other connections. Adding to these types of formalized, structured databases are growing sources of raw, unstructured big data from digital surveillance technologies like video cameras, police body cameras, and automated license plate readers. The prosecutors of the future will sit on a wealth of valuable investigative insights – all searchable and potentially relevant for a more aggressive and proactive investigation strategy.But as helpful as these new …

The Purpose Paradox: A Linguistic Dilemma Within Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence, Luke Belflower

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Excessive Force: A Feasible Proximate Cause Approach, Latasha M. James

University of Richmond Law Review

Through an analysis of the statutory and case law surrounding the use of excessive force, this Comment will review how differentiating applications of the law have led to varying and sometimes unjust results. Jurisdictions differ regarding what pre-shooting conduct can be considered, what the “objective reasonableness” standard encompasses, and how tort law should impact this analysis. Therefore, this Comment works to provide a framework for the consistent application of the objective reasonableness standard. Part I reviews the proscribed levels of force, noting when the use of force becomes excessive, and discusses the tort concept of proximate cause and how the …

United States V. Touset, Katelyn James

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Protecting Online Privacy In The Digital Age: Carpenter V. United States And The Fourth Amendment’S Third-Party Doctrine, Cristina Del Rosso, Carol M. Bast

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

The goal of this paper is to examine the future of the third-party doctrine with the proliferation of technology and the online data we are surrounded with daily, specifically after the Supreme Court’s decision in Carpenter v. United States. It is imperative that individuals do not forfeit their Constitutional guarantees for the benefit of living in a technologically advanced society. This requires an understanding of the modern-day functional equivalents of “papers” and “effects.”

Looking to the future, this paper contemplates solutions on how to move forward in this technology era by scrutinizing the relevancy of the third-party doctrine due …

The Sativas And Indicas Of Proof: Why The Smell Of Marijuana Should Not Establish Probable Cause For A Warrantless Vehicle Search In Illinois, 53 Uic J. Marshall L. Rev. 187 (2020), Cece White

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Fourth Amendment Inventory As A Check On Digital Searches, Laurent Sacharoff

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Police and federal agents generally must obtain a warrant to search the tens of thousands of devices they seize each year. But once they have a warrant, courts afford these officers broad leeway to search the entire device, every file and folder, all metadata and deleted data, even if in search of only one incriminating file. Courts avow great reverence for the privacy of personal information under the Fourth Amendment but then claim there is no way to limit where an officer might find the target files, or know where the suspect may have hidden them.

These courts have a …

In General Public Use: An Unnecessary Test In Fourth Amendment Searches Using Advanced Sensing Technology, Mike Petridis

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Sacred Fourth Amendment Text, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court's jurisprudence governing the Fourth Amendment's "threshold"--a word meant to refer to the types of police actions that trigger the amendment's warrant and reasonableness requirements--has confounded scholars and students alike since Katz v. United States. Before that 1967 decision, the Court's decisions on the topic were fairly straightforward, based primarily on whether the police trespassed on the target's property or property over which the target had control. After that decision-which has come to stand for the proposition that a Fourth Amendment search occurs if police infringe an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable--scholars …

In Memory Of Professor James E. Bond, Janet Ainsworth

Seattle University Law Review

Janet Ainsworth, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law: In Memory of Professor James E. Bond.

The Old Bailment Doctrine: The Answer To Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence In The Digital Age, Shane Gallant

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Recent Renaissance In Privacy Law, Margot Kaminski

Publications

Considering the recent increased attention to privacy law issues amid the typically slow pace of legal change.

Recalibrating Suspicion In An Era Of Hazy Legality, Deborah Ahrens

Seattle University Law Review

After a century of employing varying levels of prohibition enforced by criminal law, the United States has entered an era where individual states are rethinking marijuana policy, and the majority of states have in some way decided to make cannabis legally available. This symposium Article will offer a description of what has happened in the past few years, as well as ideas for how jurisdictions can use the changing legal status of cannabis to reshape criminal procedure more broadly. This Article will recommend that law enforcement no longer be permitted use the smell of marijuana as a reason to search …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Core Criminal Procedure, Steven Arrigg Koh

Faculty Scholarship

Constitutional criminal procedural rights are familiar to contemporary criminal law scholars and practitioners alike. But today, U.S. criminal justice may diverge substantially from its centuries-old framework when all three branches recognize only a core set of inviolable rights, implicitly or explicitly discarding others. This criminal procedural line drawing takes place when the U.S. criminal justice system engages in law enforcement cooperation with foreign criminal justice systems in order to advance criminal cases.

This Article describes the two forms of this criminal procedural line drawing. The first is a “core criminal procedure” approach, rooted in fundamental rights, that arises in the …

The Supreme Court And The Illegitimacy Of Lawless Fourth Amendment Policing, Ayesha B. Hardaway

Faculty Publications

For more than half a century, documented police brutality has affected communities of color and the American legal system has largely failed to address it. Beginning with Rizzo v. Goode, Supreme Court decisions have allowed local police departments nearly unlimited discretion in their policies and practices. That decision and others demonstrate that the Supreme Court is misaligned with governmental initiated reforms. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which allows the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to investigate law enforcement agencies’ practices and seek injunctive relief against agencies found to have engaged …

What Would Mlk Do?: A Civil Rights Model Of “Good Citizenship” In Criminal Procedure, Trevor George Gardner

Scholarship@WashULaw

Good citizenship and eager participation in police investigations would seem to fit hand-in-glove. The good citizen helps to enforce the criminal law, particularly if the physical safety of the citizenry is thought to be at risk. But as Bennett Capers argues in his essay, Criminal Procedure and the Good Citizen, this version of the good citizen—crafted and propagated by our nation’s highest court—falls into direct tension with the activist principles animating the Civil Rights Movement. For instance, Martin Luther King, Jr., insisted that the citizen not suffer from a cultural condition Capers describes as “too much respect for majoritarian …

Saving America’S Privacy Rights: Why Carpenter V. United States Was Wrongly Decided And Why Courts Should Be Promoting Legislative Reform Rather Than Extending Existing Privacy Jurisprudence, David Stone

St. Mary's Law Journal

Privacy rights are under assault, but the Supreme Court’s judicial intervention into the issue, starting with Katz v. United States and leading to the Carpenter v. United States decision has created an inconsistent, piecemeal common law of privacy that forestalls a systematic public policy resolution by Congress and the states. In order to reach a satisfactory and longlasting resolution of the problem consistent with separation of powers principles, the states should consider a constitutional amendment that reduces the danger of pervasive technologyaided surveillance and monitoring, together with a series of statutes addressing each new issue posed by technological change as …

Privacy And Pandemics, Clarisa Long

Faculty Scholarship

The beginning of 2020 marked an unexpected turn for the world, the global pandemic of COVID-19 has affected every aspect of life. It has also created an unprecedented opportunity for governments to justify the expansion of their surveillance and collection of data. The foregoing essay, which was first published in Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive of the Columbia Law School focuses on two types of data collection – governmental mass collection of nonanonymized location data and state-collected nonanonymized data on people's health and immunity status. Several countries have applied one or both practices and it is relevant to look into …

Brief Of Professors Of Law, Us V. Bergdahl, Joshua E. Kastenberg, Rachel E. Vanlandingham, Geoffrey S. Corn

Faculty Scholarship

When scrutinizing executive actions for unlawful command influence, this Court must account for a president’s immense power over the military. The extant judicial test for unlawful command influence – a violation of due process in the military setting – is a contextual one, and hence must consider the unique and unparalleled authority of the Commander-In-Chief over the military and individual service-members when the president’s actions are at issue. This executive power should also be evaluated in light of its myriad, and historically important, constitutional and statutory constraints – some predating the birth of the United States – that appropriately continue …