Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 30 of 30

Full-Text Articles in Law

Aerial Trespass And The Fourth Amendment, Randall F. Khalil May 2023

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 …


Another Katz Moment?: Privacy, Property, And A Dna Database, Claire Mena Apr 2022

Another Katz Moment?: Privacy, Property, And A Dna Database, Claire Mena

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The understanding of these words seems to shift as new technologies emerge. As law enforcement’s arsenal of surveillance techniques has grown to include GPS tracking, cell phones, and cell site location information (CSLI), the Supreme Court has applied Fourth Amendment protections to these modern tools. Law enforcement continues to use one pervasive surveillance technique without limitations: the routine collection of DNA. In 2013, the Supreme Court in Maryland v. King held that law enforcement may routinely …


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 Jan 2020

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, Eavesdropping, And Wiretapping Across The United States: Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy And Judicial Discretion, Carol M. Bast Jan 2020

Privacy, Eavesdropping, And Wiretapping Across The United States: Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy And Judicial Discretion, Carol M. Bast

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

One-party consent and all-party consent eavesdropping and wiretapping statutes are two broad pathways for legislation to deal with the problem of secret taping and some states protect conversation under state constitutions. Whether a conversation is protected against being taped as a private conversation is often gauged by the reasonable expectation of privacy standard. Judges in both all-party consent and one-party consent jurisdictions have had to use their leeway under the reasonable expectation of privacy standard to arrive at what at the time seemed to be the most appropriate solution, perhaps in doing so creating a case law exception.


The Value Of Deviance: Understanding Contextual Privacy, Timothy Casey Jan 2019

The Value Of Deviance: Understanding Contextual Privacy, Timothy Casey

Faculty Scholarship

Recent decisions by the Supreme Court in Carpenter v. United States and the Illinois Supreme Court in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation signal a shift in the traditional understanding of what exactly is protected by a privacy interest. Carpenter distinguished between a police officer’s observation of a suspect’s location and a perpetual catalogue of a person’s movements obtained through cell site location information (CSLI). The pervasive and vast quantity of information from CSLI exposed a protected privacy interest. In Rosenbach, the Illinois Supreme Court found the unique and personal quality of biometric information meant that consent and disclosure requirements …


Network Investigation Techniques: Government Hacking And The Need For Adjustment In The Third-Party Doctrine, Eduardo R. Mendoza Jan 2017

Network Investigation Techniques: Government Hacking And The Need For Adjustment In The Third-Party Doctrine, Eduardo R. Mendoza

St. Mary's Law Journal

Modern society is largely dependent on technology, and legal discovery is no longer limited to hard-copy, tangible documents. The clash of technology and the law is an exciting, yet dangerous phenomena; dangerous because our justice system desperately needs technological progress. The clash between scientific advancement and the search for truth has recently taken an interesting form—government hacking. The United States Government has increasingly used Network Investigation Techniques (NITs) to target suspects in criminal investigations. NITs operate by identifying suspects who have taken affirmative steps to conceal their identity while browsing the Internet. The hacking technique has become especially useful to …


The Qualitative Dimension Of Fourth Amendment "Reasonableness", Sherry F. Colb Dec 2014

The Qualitative Dimension Of Fourth Amendment "Reasonableness", Sherry F. Colb

Sherry Colb

Supreme Court doctrine protects two seemingly distinct kinds of interests under the heading of privacy rights: one "substantive," the other "procedural." The Fourth Amendment guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures" has been generally interpreted to protect procedural privacy. Searches are typically defined as governmental inspections of activities and locations in which an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy from observation. In the typical case, this reasonable expectation of privacy may be breached only where the government has acquired a quantitatively substantial objective basis for believing that the search would uncover evidence of a crime. Substantive privacy rights have not …


What Is A Search? Two Conceptual Flaws In Fourth Amendment Doctine And Some Hints Of A Remedy, Sherry F. Colb Dec 2014

What Is A Search? Two Conceptual Flaws In Fourth Amendment Doctine And Some Hints Of A Remedy, Sherry F. Colb

Sherry Colb

No abstract provided.


Innocence, Privacy, And Targeting In Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence, Sherry F. Colb Dec 2014

Innocence, Privacy, And Targeting In Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence, Sherry F. Colb

Sherry Colb

No abstract provided.


Interpreting Search Incident To Arrest In New York: Past, Present, And Future, Jacqueline Iaquinta Nov 2014

Interpreting Search Incident To Arrest In New York: Past, Present, And Future, Jacqueline Iaquinta

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Criminal Procedure Decisions From The October 2006 Term, Susan N. Herman May 2014

Criminal Procedure Decisions From The October 2006 Term, Susan N. Herman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Privacy In Social Media: To Tweet Or Not To Tweet?, Tara M. Breslawski Mar 2014

Privacy In Social Media: To Tweet Or Not To Tweet?, Tara M. Breslawski

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


It's Reasonable To Expect Privacy When Watching Adult Videos, Matthew Leonhardt Mar 2014

It's Reasonable To Expect Privacy When Watching Adult Videos, Matthew Leonhardt

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Fourth Amendment Status Of Stored E-Mail: The Law Professors' Brief In Warshak V. United States, Susan Freiwald, Patricia L. Bellia Oct 2013

The Fourth Amendment Status Of Stored E-Mail: The Law Professors' Brief In Warshak V. United States, Susan Freiwald, Patricia L. Bellia

Patricia L. Bellia

This paper contains the law professors' brief in the landmark case of Warshak v. United States, the first federal appellate case to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy in electronic mail stored with an Internet Service Provider (ISP). While the 6th circuit's opinion was subsequently vacated and reheard en banc, the panel decision will remain extremely significant for its requirement that law enforcement agents must generally acquire a warrant before compelling an ISP to disclose its subscriber's stored e-mails. The law professors' brief, co-authored by Susan Freiwald (University of San Francisco) and Patricia L. Bellia (Notre Dame) and signed by …


Fourth Amendment Protection For Stored E-Mail, Patricia L. Bellia, Susan Freiwald Oct 2013

Fourth Amendment Protection For Stored E-Mail, Patricia L. Bellia, Susan Freiwald

Patricia L. Bellia

The question of whether and how the Fourth Amendment regulates government access to stored e-mail remains open and pressing. A panel of the Sixth Circuit recently held in Warshak v. United States, 490 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2007), that users generally retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in the e-mails they store with their Internet Service Providers (ISPs), which implies that government agents must generally acquire a warrant before they may compel ISPs to disclose their users' stored e-mails. The Sixth Circuit, however, is reconsidering the case en banc. This Article examines the nature of stored e-mail surveillance and argues …


Privacy Implications Of Smart Meters, Cheryl Dancey Balough Dec 2010

Privacy Implications Of Smart Meters, Cheryl Dancey Balough

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Many people worry about the erosion of privacy in our society given developments in technology, but that loss of privacy may take a quantum leap as electric "smart meters" make it possible for strangers to know on a real-time basis what is occurring in our houses and apartments. Perhaps the greatest concern is that current laws and regulations do not fully protect us from this unprecedented threat to two of our most basic rights—to be left alone in our own homes and to control personal information. Utility companies across the country are replacing conventional electric meters with smart meters designed …


Fourth Amendment Protection For Stored E-Mail, Patricia L. Bellia, Susan Freiwald Jan 2008

Fourth Amendment Protection For Stored E-Mail, Patricia L. Bellia, Susan Freiwald

Journal Articles

The question of whether and how the Fourth Amendment regulates government access to stored e-mail remains open and pressing. A panel of the Sixth Circuit recently held in Warshak v. United States, 490 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2007), that users generally retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in the e-mails they store with their Internet Service Providers (ISPs), which implies that government agents must generally acquire a warrant before they may compel ISPs to disclose their users' stored e-mails. The Sixth Circuit, however, is reconsidering the case en banc. This Article examines the nature of stored e-mail surveillance and argues …


Georgia V. Randolph: Whose Castle Is It, Anyway?, Lesley Mccall Jan 2007

Georgia V. Randolph: Whose Castle Is It, Anyway?, Lesley Mccall

University of Richmond Law Review

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, a warrant is required to conduct a lawful search of a person's home, and a warrantless search is unreasonable per se. However, there are some exceptions to this requirement. A warrantless search is reasonable if police obtain voluntary consent from a person to search their home or effects. The Supreme Court has also recognized that a third party with common authority over a household may consent to a police search affecting an absent co-occupant. The Supreme Court of the United States recently addressed whether third party consent was effective …


The Fourth Amendment Status Of Stored E-Mail: The Law Professors' Brief In Warshak V. United States, Susan Freiwald, Patricia L. Bellia Jan 2007

The Fourth Amendment Status Of Stored E-Mail: The Law Professors' Brief In Warshak V. United States, Susan Freiwald, Patricia L. Bellia

Journal Articles

This paper contains the law professors' brief in the landmark case of Warshak v. United States, the first federal appellate case to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy in electronic mail stored with an Internet Service Provider (ISP). While the 6th circuit's opinion was subsequently vacated and reheard en banc, the panel decision will remain extremely significant for its requirement that law enforcement agents must generally acquire a warrant before compelling an ISP to disclose its subscriber's stored e-mails. The law professors' brief, co-authored by Susan Freiwald (University of San Francisco) and Patricia L. Bellia (Notre Dame) and signed by …


The Technology Of Surveillance: Will The Supreme Court's Expectations Ever Resemble Society's?, Stephen E. Henderson Dec 2006

The Technology Of Surveillance: Will The Supreme Court's Expectations Ever Resemble Society's?, Stephen E. Henderson

Stephen E Henderson

For law students studying criminal procedure—or at least for those cramming for the exam—it becomes a mantra: government conduct only implicates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches if it invades a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” This is not the contemporary definition of the word “search,” nor was it the definition at the time of the founding. But, via a well-intentioned concurrence by Justice Harlan in the famous 1967 case of Katz v. United States, it became the Court’s definition.
This lack of fealty to the English language left some questions. For example, is determining whether someone has a “reasonable …


Beyond The (Current) Fourth Amendment: Protecting Third-Party Information, Third Parties, And The Rest Of Us Too, Stephen E. Henderson Dec 2006

Beyond The (Current) Fourth Amendment: Protecting Third-Party Information, Third Parties, And The Rest Of Us Too, Stephen E. Henderson

Stephen E Henderson

For at least thirty years the Supreme Court has adhered to its third-party doctrine in interpreting the Fourth Amendment, meaning that so far as a disclosing party is concerned, information in the hands of a third party receives no Fourth Amendment protection. The doctrine was controversial when adopted, has been the target of sustained criticism, and is the predominant reason that the Katz revolution has not been the revolution many hoped it would be. Some forty years after Katz the Court's search jurisprudence largely remains tied to property conceptions. As I have demonstrated elsewhere, however, the doctrine is not the …


What Is A Search? Two Conceptual Flaws In Fourth Amendment Doctine And Some Hints Of A Remedy, Sherry F. Colb Oct 2002

What Is A Search? Two Conceptual Flaws In Fourth Amendment Doctine And Some Hints Of A Remedy, Sherry F. Colb

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


The Qualitative Dimension Of Fourth Amendment "Reasonableness", Sherry F. Colb Nov 1998

The Qualitative Dimension Of Fourth Amendment "Reasonableness", Sherry F. Colb

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Supreme Court doctrine protects two seemingly distinct kinds of interests under the heading of privacy rights: one "substantive," the other "procedural." The Fourth Amendment guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures" has been generally interpreted to protect procedural privacy. Searches are typically defined as governmental inspections of activities and locations in which an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy from observation. In the typical case, this reasonable expectation of privacy may be breached only where the government has acquired a quantitatively substantial objective basis for believing that the search would uncover evidence of a crime. Substantive privacy rights have not …


Innocence, Privacy, And Targeting In Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence, Sherry F. Colb Oct 1996

Innocence, Privacy, And Targeting In Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence, Sherry F. Colb

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


Search & Seizure Jan 1995

Search & Seizure

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Search & Seizure Jan 1995

Search & Seizure

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Search & Seizure Jan 1995

Search & Seizure

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Search & Seizure Jan 1993

Search & Seizure

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Search And Seizure Jan 1991

Search And Seizure

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Florida V. Riley: The Emerging Standard For Aerial Surveillance Of The Curtilage, David J. Stewart Jan 1990

Florida V. Riley: The Emerging Standard For Aerial Surveillance Of The Curtilage, David J. Stewart

Vanderbilt Law Review

The expression, "a man's home is his castle," embodies one of the most cherished individual liberties in American society, the right to en-joy privacy and freedom from unreasonable government intrusion in the confines of one's home.' Recognizing the importance of this right, the first Senate adopted the fourth amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Initially, the United States Supreme Court narrowly construed the fourth amendment as protecting only physical intrusions of persons,houses, papers, and effects.4 Later, the Court expanded coverage of the fourth amendment to include the area immediately adjacent to the home and used in connection …