Quasi-Constitutional Protections And Government Surveillance, 2016 Brigham Young University Law School
Quasi-Constitutional Protections And Government Surveillance, Emily Berman
BYU Law Review
The post-Edward Snowden debate over government surveillance has been vigorous. One aspect of that debate has been widespread criticism of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), alleging that the FISC served as a rubber stamp for the government, consistently accepting implausible interpretations of existing law that served to expand government surveillance authority; engaging in tortured analyses of statutory language; and ignoring fundamental Fourth Amendment principles. This Article argues that these critiques have entirely overlooked critical aspects of the FISC’s jurisprudence. A close look at that jurisprudence reveals a court that did, in fact, vigorously defend the interests customarily protected by …
Fourth Amendment Remedies As Rights: The Warrant Requirement, 2016 University of Maryland School of Law
Fourth Amendment Remedies As Rights: The Warrant Requirement, David Gray
David C. Gray
The constitutional status of the warrant requirement is hotly debated. Critics argue that neither the text nor history of the Fourth Amendment support a warrant requirement. Also questioned is the warrant requirement’s ability to protect Fourth Amendment interests. Perhaps in response to these concerns, the Court has steadily degraded the warrant requirement through a series of widening exceptions. The result is an unsatisfying jurisprudence that fails on both conceptual and practical grounds.
These debates have gained new salience with the emergence of modern surveillance technologies such as stingrays, GPS tracking, drones, and Big Data. Although a majority of the Court …
13th Annual Diversity Symposium Dinner 04-07-2016, 2016 Roger Williams University
13th Annual Diversity Symposium Dinner 04-07-2016, Roger Williams University School Of Law
School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events
No abstract provided.
Police Misconduct - A Plaintiff's Point Of View, Part Ii, 2016 Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Police Misconduct - A Plaintiff's Point Of View, Part Ii, John Williams
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Procedural Due Process Claims, 2016 Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Procedural Due Process Claims, Erwin Chemerinsky
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Supreme Court's 1998-1999 Term: Fourth Amendment Decisions, 2016 Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Supreme Court's 1998-1999 Term: Fourth Amendment Decisions, Kathryn R. Urbonya
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Constitutional Law—Fourth Amendment And Seizures— Accidental Seizures By Deadly Force: Who Is Seized During A Police Shootout? Plumhoff V. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (2014)., 2016 University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law
Constitutional Law—Fourth Amendment And Seizures— Accidental Seizures By Deadly Force: Who Is Seized During A Police Shootout? Plumhoff V. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (2014)., Adam D. Franks
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Post-Riley Search Warrant: Search Protocols And Particularity In Cell Phone Searches, 2016 Vanderbilt University Law School
The Post-Riley Search Warrant: Search Protocols And Particularity In Cell Phone Searches, Adam M. Gershowitz
Vanderbilt Law Review
Last year, in Riley v. California, the Supreme Court required police to procure a warrant before searching a cell phone. Unfortunately, the Court's assumption that requiring search warrants would be "simple" and very protective of privacy was overly optimistic. This article reviews lower court decisions in the year since Riley and finds that the search warrant requirement is far less protective than expected. Rather than restricting search warrants to the narrow evidence being sought, some magistrates have issued expansive warrants authorizing a search of the entire contents of the phone with no restrictions whatsoever. Other courts have authorized searches of …
Unilateral Invasions Of Privacy, 2016 University of New Hampshire School of Law
Unilateral Invasions Of Privacy, Roger Allan Ford
Law Faculty Scholarship
Most people seem to agree that individuals have too little privacy, and most proposals to address that problem focus on ways to give those users more information about, and more control over, how information about them is used. Yet in nearly all cases, information subjects are not the parties who make decisions about how information is collected, used, and disseminated; instead, outsiders make unilateral decisions to collect, use, and disseminate information about others. These potential privacy invaders, acting without input from information subjects, are the parties to whom proposals to protect privacy must be directed. This Article develops a theory …
The Post-Riley Search Warrant: Search Protocols And Particularity In Cell Phone Searches, 2016 William & Mary Law School
The Post-Riley Search Warrant: Search Protocols And Particularity In Cell Phone Searches, Adam M. Gershowitz
Faculty Publications
Last year, in Riley v. California, the Supreme Court required police to procure a warrant before searching a cell phone. Unfortunately, the Court’s assumption that requiring search warrants would be “simple” and very protective of privacy was overly optimistic. This article reviews lower court decisions in the year since Riley and finds that the search warrant requirement is far less protective than expected. Rather than restricting search warrants to the narrow evidence being sought, some magistrates have issued expansive warrants authorizing a search of the entire contents of the phone with no restrictions whatsoever. Other courts have authorized searches …
Show Me The Warrant: Protection Of Stored Electronic Communications In New York State, 2016 Fordham University School of Law
Show Me The Warrant: Protection Of Stored Electronic Communications In New York State, Kaitlin G. Klamann
Fordham Urban Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Ou Professor: Fourth Amendment At Heart Of Dispute Between Fbi, Apple, 2016 University of Oklahoma College of Law
Ou Professor: Fourth Amendment At Heart Of Dispute Between Fbi, Apple, Stephen E. Henderson
Stephen E Henderson
Community Control Over Camera Surveillance: A Response To Bennett Capers’S Crime, Surveillance, And Communities, 2016 Vanderbilt University Law School
Community Control Over Camera Surveillance: A Response To Bennett Capers’S Crime, Surveillance, And Communities, Christopher Slobogin
Fordham Urban Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Interrogation First, Miranda Warnings Afterward: A Critical Analysis Of The Supreme Court's Approach To Delayed Miranda Warnings, 2016 Fordham University School of Law
Interrogation First, Miranda Warnings Afterward: A Critical Analysis Of The Supreme Court's Approach To Delayed Miranda Warnings, Joshua I. Rodriguez
Fordham Urban Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Crime, Surveillance, And Communities, 2016 Brooklyn Law School
Crime, Surveillance, And Communities, Bennett Capers
Fordham Urban Law Journal
We have become a surveillance state. Cameras—both those controlled by the state, and those installed by private entities—watch our every move, at least in public. For the most part, courts have deemed this public surveillance to be beyond the purview of the Fourth Amendment, meaning that it goes largely unregulated—a cause for alarm for many civil libertarians. This Article challenges these views and suggests that we must listen to communities in thinking about cameras and other surveillance technologies. For many communities, public surveillance not only has the benefit of deterring crime and aiding in the apprehension of criminals. It can …
On The 'Considered Analysis' Of Collecting Dna Before Conviction, 2016 Penn State Law
On The 'Considered Analysis' Of Collecting Dna Before Conviction, David H. Kaye
David Kaye
For nearly a decade, DNA-on-arrest laws eluded scrutiny in the courts. For another five years, they withstood a gathering storm of constitutional challenges. In Maryland v. King, however, Maryland's highest court reasoned that usually fingerprints provide everything police need to establish the true identity of an individual before trial and that the state's interest in finding the perpetrators of crimes by trawling databases of DNA profiles is too "generalized" to support "a warrantless, suspicionless search." The U.S. Supreme Court reacted forcefully. Chief Justice Roberts stayed the Maryland judgment, writing that "given the considered analysis of courts on the other side …
Maryland V. King: Per Se Unreasonableness, The Golden Rule, And The Future Of Dna Databases, 2016 Penn State Law
Maryland V. King: Per Se Unreasonableness, The Golden Rule, And The Future Of Dna Databases, David H. Kaye
David Kaye
In Maryland v. King, the Supreme Court applied a balancing test to uphold a Maryland statute mandating preconviction collection and analysis of DNA from individuals charged with certain crimes. The DNA profiles are limited to an inherited set of DNA sequences that are not known to be functional and that are tokens of individual identity. This invited online essay examines two aspects of an article on the case by Professor Erin Murphy. I question the claim that the case is pivotal in a conceivable abandonment of the per se rule that warrantless, suspicionless searches are unconstitutional unless they fall …
Dna Database Trawls And The Definition Of A Search In Boroian V. Mueller, 2016 Penn State Law
Dna Database Trawls And The Definition Of A Search In Boroian V. Mueller, David H. Kaye
David Kaye
As a general matter, once the government acquires information from a permissible search or seizure, it can use this information in later criminal investigations. Courts have applied this simple rule to uphold the indefinite reuse of DNA samples acquired from convicted offenders. This essay describes the First Circuit Court of Appeals’ reliance on the rule in rejecting a convicted offender’s claim that his DNA sample and profile had to be removed from the federal DNA databank after he completed his sentence. Acknowledging that the rule permitting reuse should not be applied mechanically, I argue that the rule's application to DNA …
Family Court, Seneca County, In Re Kaufman, 2016 Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Family Court, Seneca County, In Re Kaufman, Edward Callaghan
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
County Court, Monroe County, People V. Reynolds, 2016 Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
County Court, Monroe County, People V. Reynolds, Jill Weinberg
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.