Law Commons^™

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Private Police Regulation And The Exclusionary Remedy: How Washington Can Eliminate The Public/Private Distinction, Jared Rothenberg

Washington Law Review

Private security forces such as campus police, security guards, loss prevention officers, and the like are not state actors covered by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures nor the Fifth Amendment’s Miranda protections. As members of the umbrella category of “private police,” these private law enforcement agents often obtain evidence, detain individuals, and elicit confessions in a manner that government actors cannot, which can then be lawfully turned over to the government. Though the same statutory law governing private citizens (assault, false imprisonment, trespass, etc.) also regulates private police conduct, private police conduct is not bound by …

A Miscarriage Of Justice: How Femtech Apps And Fog Data Evade Fourth Amendment Privacy Protections, Rachel Silver

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

After the fall of Roe v. Wade, states across the country have enacted extreme abortion bans. Anti-abortion states, emboldened by their new, unrestricted power to regulate women’s bodies, are only broadening the scope of abortion prosecutions. And modern technology provides law enforcement with unprecedented access to women’s most intimate information, including, for example, their menstrual cycle, weight, body temperature, sexual activity, mood, medications, and pregnancy details. Fourth Amendment law fails to protect this sensitive information stored on femtech apps from government searches. In a largely unregulated private market, femtech apps sell health and location data to third parties like Fog …

How To Punish Your Least Favorite Online Influencer: Wellness Checks As Swatting And Their Disproportionate Impact On Marginalized Creators, Tara Blackwell

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

Marginalized online creators are vulnerable to attacks using digital means of harassment including traditional swatting as well as the abuse of wellness checks that can act as swatting. Enabled by permissive Supreme Court 4th Amendment jurisprudence, malignant online actors have taken advantage of the ramshackle system of wellness checks that sends armed police officers with little training and even less compassion to the doors of individuals with reported mental health crises. This Note focuses on two polarizing influencers who have been subject to wellness check swatting after being very open about their mental health statuses online. This Note argues that …

Reasonable In Time, Unreasonable In Scope: Maximizing Fourth Amendment Protections Under Rodriguez V. United States, Thomas Heiden

Washington Law Review

In Rodriguez v. United States, the Supreme Court held that a law enforcement officer may not conduct a drug dog sniff after the completion of a routine traffic stop because doing so extends the stop without reasonable suspicion in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable seizures. Tracing the background of Rodriguez from the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Terry v. Ohio, this Comment argues that Rodriguez is best understood as a reaction to the continued erosion of Fourth Amendment protections in the investigative stop context. Based on that understanding, this Comment argues for a strict reading of Rodriguez, …

Stay Out Of My Head: Neurodata, Privacy, And The First Amendment, Wayne Unger

Washington and Lee Law Review

The once science-fictional idea of mind-reading is within reach as advancements in brain-computer interfaces, coupled with advanced artificial intelligence, produce neurodata—the collection of substantive thoughts as storable and processable data. But government access to individuals’ neurodata threatens personal autonomy and the right to privacy. While the Fourth Amendment is traditionally considered the source of privacy protections against government intrusion, the First Amendment provides more robust protections with respect to whether governments can access one’s substantive ideas, thoughts, and beliefs. However, many theorists assert that the concept of privacy conflicts with the First Amendment because privacy restricts the flow of information …

The United States Should Take A Page Out Of Canadian Law When It Comes To Privacy, Genetic And Otherwise, Ashley Rahaim

University of Miami Inter-American Law Review

Genetic information is intimate and telling data warranting privacy in public and private realms. The privacy protections offered in the United States and Canada vastly differ when it comes to genetic privacy. Search and seizure law mirrors the privacy gap in the countries, as well as their treatment of DNA database information.

This note explores the foreshadowing of the creation of genetic privacy laws and their varying levels of protection based on the way private information was treated by state actors through search and seizure caselaw, the creation of legal precedent, and the treatment of intimate personal data in the …

Per Curiam Signals In The Supreme Court's Shadow Docket, Zina Makar

Washington Law Review

Lower courts and litigants depend a great deal on the Supreme Court to articulate and communicate signals regarding how to interpret existing doctrine. Signals are at their strongest and most reliable when they originate from the Court’s merits docket. More recently, the Court has been increasingly relying on its orders docket—colloquially referred to as its “shadow docket”—to communicate with lower courts by summarily reversing and correcting errors in interpretation without briefing or oral argument.

Over the past decade the Roberts Court has granted certiorari to summarily reverse a growing number of qualified immunity cases, issuing over a dozen unsigned per …

Constitutional Law—The Current System For Abolishing Child Pornography Online Is Ineffective: The Alternative Measure For Eradicating Online Predators, Virginia Kendall

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Tesla Meets The Fourth Amendment, Adam M. Gershowitz

BYU Law Review

Can police search a smart car’s computer without a warrant? Although the Supreme Court banned warrantless searches of cell phones incident to arrest in Riley v. California, the Court left the door open for warrantless searches under other exceptions to the warrant requirement. This is the first article to argue that the Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception currently permits the police to warrantlessly dig into a vehicle’s computer system and extract vast amounts of cell phone data. Just as the police can rip open seats or slash tires to search for drugs under the automobile exception, the police can warrantlessly extract …

Asking For It: Gendered Dimensions Of Surveillance Capitalism, Jessica Rizzo

Emancipations: A Journal of Critical Social Analysis

Advertising and privacy were once seen as mutually antagonistic. In the 1950s and 1960s, Americans went to court to fight for their right to be free from the invasion of privacy presented by unwanted advertising, but a strange realignment took place in the 1970s. Radical feminists were among those who were extremely concerned about the collection and computerization of personal data—they worried about private enterprise getting a hold of that data and using it to target women—but liberal feminists went in a different direction, making friends with advertising because they saw it as strategically valuable.

Liberal feminists argued that in …

Privacy Lost: How The Montana Supreme Court Undercuts The Right Of Privacy, Kevin Frazier

Seattle Journal of Technology, Environmental & Innovation Law

In 1972, Montanans ratified a new constitution that included a “right of privacy.” The plain text of the provision fails to express the intent of the Framers who not only intended to afford Montanans a right, but also to impose a responsibility on the State to continuously and thoroughly examine State practices in light of evolving means of invading residents’ privacy. This intent has gone unrealized despite the fact that the intent of the Framers is clear, readily available, and the primary source state courts ought to use when interpreting the Constitution. This article delves into the transcripts of the …

The Fourth Amendment's Constitutional Home, Gerald S. Dickinson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The home enjoys omnipresent status in American constitutional law. The Bill of Rights, peculiarly, has served as the central refuge for special protections to the home. This constitutional sanctuary has elicited an intriguing textual and doctrinal puzzle. A distinct thread has emerged that runs through the first five amendments delineating the home as a zone where rights emanating from speech, smut, gods, guns, soldiers, searches, sex, and self-incrimination enjoy special protections. However, the thread inexplicably unravels upon arriving at takings. There, the constitutional text omits and the Supreme Court’s doctrine excludes a special zone of safeguards to the home. This …

A New Test For The New Crime Exception, Colin Miller

Utah Law Review

The new crime exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule allows prosecutors to introduce evidence connected to new crimes committed by defendants who were illegally detained and/or questioned. Unfortunately, as illustrated in this Article, courts largely have applied this new crime exception without any analytical framework or regard for the severity of the initial police misconduct or the defendant’s response. Moreover, courts have begun applying the new crime exception to crimes such as giving a fake name in response to an un-Mirandized interrogation following a lawful arrest.

By doing so, courts have allowed the new crime exception to swallow two …

Aerial Trespass And The Fourth Amendment, Randall F. Khalil

Michigan Law Review

Since 1973, courts have analyzed aerial surveillance under the Fourth Amendment by applying the test from Katz v. United States, which states that a search triggers the Fourth Amendment when a government actor violates a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.” The Supreme Court applied Katz to aerial surveillance three times throughout the 1980s, yet this area of the law remains unsettled and outcomes are unpredictable. In 2012, the Supreme Court recognized an alternative to the Katz test in Jones v. United States, which held that a search triggers the Fourth Amendment when a government actor physically intrudes into …

Policing The Police: Establishing The Right To Record And Civilian Oversight Boards To Oversee America’S Police, Michael G. Brewster

Brooklyn Law Review

Police misconduct is a persistent issue in the United States that undermines public trust in law enforcement and the criminal justice system as a whole. The video of George Floyd’s arrest and murder played an irreplaceable role in bringing attention to the case and sparking nationwide discussions about the state of policing in America. The video, showing former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin kneeling on Mr. Floyd’s neck for several minutes, also helped convict Mr. Chauvin of murder at trial. Recording police activity is an important means of holding officers accountable for their actions and protecting citizens from abuse of …

Giving The Fourth Amendment Meaning: Creating An Adversarial Warrant Proceeding To Protect From Unreasonable Searches And Seizures, Ben Mordechai-Strongin

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

For at least the past 40 years, police and prosecutors have had free reign in conducting illegal searches and seizures nominally barred by the Fourth Amendment. The breadth of exceptions to the warrant requirement, the lax interpretation of probable cause, and especially the “good faith” doctrine announced in U.S. v. Leon have led to severe violations of privacy rights, trauma to those wrongly searched or seized, and a court system overburdened by police misconduct cases. Most scholars analyzing the issue agree that the rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment—to be free from unreasonable search and seizure—have been severely eroded or …

Extended Privacy For Extended Reality: Xr Technology Has 99 Problems And Privacy Is Several Of Them, Suchismita Pahi, Calli Schroeder

Notre Dame Journal on Emerging Technologies

Americans are rapidly adopting innovative technologies which are pushing the frontiers of reality. But, when they look at how their privacy is protected within the new extended reality (XR), they will find that U.S. privacy laws fall short. The privacy risks inherent in XR are inadequately addressed by current U.S. data privacy laws or courtcreated frameworks that purport to protect the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches. Many scholars, including Ryan Calo, Danielle Citron, Sherry Colb, Margaret Hu, Orin Kerr, Kirsten Martin, Paul Ohm, Daniel Solove, Rebecca Wexler, Shoshana Zuboff, and others, have highlighted the gaps in U.S. …

Search And Seizure Budgets, Kiel Brennan-Marquez, Stephen E. Henderson

UC Irvine Law Review

This Article proposes a new means of restraining police power: quantitative limits on the number of law enforcement intrusions—searches and seizures—that may occur over a given period of time. Like monetary constraints, search and seizure budgets would aim to curb abusive policing and improve democratic oversight. But unlike their monetary counterparts, budgets would be indexed directly to the specific police activities that most enable escalation and abuse. What is more, budgets are a tool that finds support, conceptually, in the American framing experience. The Fourth Amendment has long been understood to require procedural limits, such as probable cause, on specific …

Gone Fishing: Casting A Wide Net Using Geofence Warrants, Ryan Tursi

Washington Law Review

Technology companies across the country receive requests from law enforcement agencies for cell phone location information near the scenes of crimes. These requests rely on the traditional warrant process and are known as geofence warrants, or reverse location search warrants. By obtaining location information, law enforcement can identify potential suspects or persons of interest who were near the scene of a crime when they have no leads. But the use of this investigative technique is controversial, as it threatens to intrude upon the privacy of innocent bystanders who had the misfortune of being nearby when the crime took place. Innocent …

Pocket Police: The Plain Feel Doctrine Thirty Years Later, Kelly Recker

Michigan Law Review

The idea that a police officer can park in a low-income neighborhood, pull someone over because of their race, frisk everyone in the car, let them go if their pockets are empty, and do the whole thing over and over again until the officer finds something illegal seems deeply upsetting and violative, to say the least. And yet, pretextual traffic stops are constitutional per a unanimous Supreme Court in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), as is seizing obvious contraband during a frisk per Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993). In the thirty years since …

When Taint Teams Go Awry: Laundering Unconstitutional Violations Of The Fourth Amendment, Edward S. Adams, William C. Price Jr.

Arkansas Law Review

In this Article, we examine the legal landscape in which taint teams operate, why taint teams are constitutionally problematic, and propose a solution to protect the attorney-client privilege. In Part I, we will first describe what taint teams are supposed to protect—attorney-client privilege. Next, we review how a taint team gets its documents to review, namely the doctrine surrounding (secret) search warrants. Part I ends with a non exhaustive summary of remedies available when attorney-client privilege is violated during searches. In Part II, we explain the current policies and practices surrounding taint teams, including sources of procedure for taint teams …

Justice For Dogs, Alexander J. Lindvall

Arkansas Law Review

This Essay summarizes the Fourth Amendment’s protection of dogs. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable seizures. And nearly every circuit has held that it is unreasonable (and therefore unconstitutional) for an officer to shoot (seize) a dog without a very good reason. Killing a nonthreatening family pet is one of the most egregious forms of police misconduct. The courts rightfully recognize that the unjustified harming of a dog violates the Fourth Amendment.

The Long Road To Justice: Why State Courts Should Lower The Evidentiary Burden For Proving Racialized Traffic Stops And Adopt The Exclusionary Rule As A Remedy For Equal Protection Violations, Abby M. Fink

Washington Journal of Social & Environmental Justice

Racist and brutal policing continues to pervade the criminal legal system. Black and brown people who interact with the police consistently face unequal targeting and treatment. Routine traffic stops are especially dangerous and harmful and can lead to death. Under Whren, a police officer’s racist motivations or implicit bias towards a driver do not influence the constitutionality of a traffic stop. An officer only needs to show there was probable cause to believe a traffic stop occurred. Although the unconstitutionality of pre-textual traffic stops has been widely explored since Whren, both federal and state courts have struggled to find legal …

Searches Without Suspicion: Avoiding A Four Million Person Underclass, Tonja Jacobi, Addie Maguire

BYU Law Review

In Samson v. California, the Supreme Court upheld warrantless, suspicionless searches for parolees. That determination was controversial both because suspicionless searches are, by definition, anathema to the Fourth Amendment, and because they arguably undermine parolees’ rehabilitation. Less attention has been given to the fact that the implications of the case were not limited to parolees. The opinion in Samson included half a sentence of dicta that seemingly swept probationers into its analysis, implicating the rights of millions of additional people in the United States. Not only is analogizing parolees and probationers not logically sound because the two groups differ in …

“Alexa, Am I A Murderer?”: An Analysis Of Whether The First Amendment Protects Smart Speaker Communications, Josie A. Bates

Arkansas Law Review

State v. Bates poses interesting First Amendment questions that go far beyond the case itself, such as whether communications to and from smart speakers are protected under the First Amendment and, if so, whether the government must therefore meet a heightened standard before obtaining information from these devices. But currently, there are no definite answers. Thus, this analysis will attempt to answer these questions as well as offer general guidance for the future of First and Fourth Amendment law in the age of ever-changing technological advancements and never-ending criminal accusations.

Crimes Of Suspicion, Lauryn P. Gouldin

Emory Law Journal

Requiring that officers have suspicion of specific crimes before they seize people during stops or arrests is a fundamental rule-of-law limitation on government power. Until very recently, the Supreme Court studiously avoided saying whether reasonable suspicion for street and traffic stops must be crime specific, and lower courts are sharply divided as a result. Statements made in Kansas v. Glover that the Fourth Amendment requires reasonable suspicion of a “particular crime” or of “specific criminal activity” may reflect an effort to rehabilitate this foundational principle, but crime specificity was not the Court’s focus in Glover. Meanwhile, Fourth Amendment scholars, even …

Expanding The Sixth Amendment’S Right To Counsel To Ensure Fairness For Noncitizen Defendants, Kathy Santamaria Mendez

Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice

No abstract provided.

Forensic Microbiome Evidence: Fourth Amendment Applications And Court Acceptance, Trason Lasley

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

On Warrants & Waiting: Electronic Warrants & The Fourth Amendment, Tracy Hresko Pearl

Indiana Law Journal

Police use of electronic warrant (“e-warrant”) technology has increased significantly in recent years. E-warrant technology allows law enforcement to submit, and magistrate judges to review and approve, warrant applications on computers, smartphones, and tablets, often without any direct communication. Police officers report that they favor e-warrants over their traditional, paper counterparts because they save officers a significant amount of time in applying for warrants by eliminating the need to appear in-person before a magistrate. Legal scholars have almost uniformly praised e-warrant technology as well, arguing that use of these systems will increase the number of warrants issued throughout the United …