Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- File Type
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Back To The Future: The Constitution Requires Reasonableness And Particularity—Introducing The “Seize But Don’T Search” Doctrine, Adam Lamparello, Charles E. Maclean
Back To The Future: The Constitution Requires Reasonableness And Particularity—Introducing The “Seize But Don’T Search” Doctrine, Adam Lamparello, Charles E. Maclean
Adam Lamparello
Issuing one-hundred or fewer opinions per year, the United States Supreme Court cannot keep pace with opinions that match technological advancement. As a result, in Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, the Court needs to announce a broader principle that protects privacy in the digital age. That principle, what we call “seize but don’t search,” recognizes that the constitutional touchstone for all searches is reasonableness.
When do present-day circumstances—the evolution in the Government’s surveillance capabilities, citizens’ phone habits, and the relationship between the NSA and telecom companies—become so thoroughly unlike those considered by the Supreme Court thirty-four years …
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.”