Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Abidor V. Napolitano: Suspicionless Cell Phone And Laptop Searches At The Border Compromise The Fourth And First Amendments, Adam Lamparello, Charles Maclean
Abidor V. Napolitano: Suspicionless Cell Phone And Laptop Searches At The Border Compromise The Fourth And First Amendments, Adam Lamparello, Charles Maclean
Adam Lamparello
The article explores the December 31, 2013 Abidor decision where the federal district court upheld the ongoing application of the border search exception as applied to deep, forensic searches of laptops and other digital devices. That exception allows suspicionless searches of any persons, effects, and “closed containers” crossing a border into the United States, and laptops and external hard drives are generally considered “closed containers” under the border search exception. We argue that the border search exception, grounded as it is in pre-digital age fact patterns, should no longer serve as precedent for border searches of the immense memories of …
Amicus Brief -- Riley V. California And United States V. Wurie, Charles E. Maclean, Adam Lamparello
Amicus Brief -- Riley V. California And United States V. Wurie, Charles E. Maclean, Adam Lamparello
Adam Lamparello
Warrantless searches of cell phone memory—after a suspect has been arrested, and after law enforcement has seized the phone—would have been unconstitutional at the time the Fourth Amendment was adopted, and are unconstitutional now. Simply stated, they are unreasonable. And reasonableness—not a categorical warrant requirement—is the “touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis.”
Amicus Brief: State V. Glover (Maine Supreme Judicial Court), Adam Lamparello, Charles Maclean
Amicus Brief: State V. Glover (Maine Supreme Judicial Court), Adam Lamparello, Charles Maclean
Adam Lamparello
When law enforcement seeks to obtain a warrantless, pre-arrest DNA sample from an individual, that individual has the right to say “No.” If silence is to become a “badge of guilt,” then the right to silence—under the United States and Maine Constitutions—might become a thing of the past. Allowing jurors to infer consciousness of guilt from a pre-arrest DNA sample violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States and Maine Constitutions.