Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Supreme Court Jurisprudence Of The Personal In City Of Los Angeles V. Patel, Brian L. Owsley
Supreme Court Jurisprudence Of The Personal In City Of Los Angeles V. Patel, Brian L. Owsley
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Recently, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in City of Los Angeles v. Patel striking down a city ordinance that required hotel and motel owners to make their guest registries available to police officers whenever requested to do so. Although the Court’s opinion in Patel simply affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s finding that the ordinance was unconstitutional, the Court could have used Patel to readdress the third-party doctrine, which establishes that “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.” Patel provided a vehicle for the Court to do so, particularly because …
Response: The Problems With Privacy's Problem, Louis Michael Seidman
Response: The Problems With Privacy's Problem, Louis Michael Seidman
Michigan Law Review
A Response to William J. Stuntz's "Privacy's Problem and the Law of Criminal Procedure"
Privacy's Problem And The Law Of Criminal Procedure, William J. Stuntz
Privacy's Problem And The Law Of Criminal Procedure, William J. Stuntz
Michigan Law Review
Part I of this article addresses the connection between privacy-based limits on police authority and substantive limits on government power as a general matter. Part II briefly addresses the effects of that connection on Fourth and Fifth Amendment law, both past and present. Part ID suggests that privacy protection has a deeper problem: it tends to obscure more serious harms that attend police misconduct, harms that flow not from information disclosure but from the police use of force. The upshot is that criminal procedure would be better off with less attention to privacy, at least as privacy is defined in …
Reply, William J. Stuntz
Reply, William J. Stuntz
Michigan Law Review
A Reply to Louis Michael Seidman's Response