Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Brief Of The National Association For Public Defense As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Byrd V. U.S. (U.S. June 12, 2017) (No. 16- 1371)., Janet Moore
Faculty Articles and Other Publications
More than two centuries after it was ratified, the Fourth Amendment continues to protect the “right of the people to be secure” from “unreasonable searches.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. Modern technological advances and social developments do not render our rights “any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought.” Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2494–95 (2014). This Court plays an essential role in ensuring that the Fourth Amendment retains its vitality as an indispensable safeguard of liberty, even as Americans dramatically change the ways they organize their everyday affairs. This case calls for the Court to …
An Alcohol Mindset In A Drug-Crazed World: A Review Of Birchfield V. North Dakota, Devon Beeny
An Alcohol Mindset In A Drug-Crazed World: A Review Of Birchfield V. North Dakota, Devon Beeny
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
Birchfield v. North Dakota involved the ability of legislatures to criminalize a driver’s refusal to submit to a chemical test after a law enforcement officer arrested the individual for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The driver’s argued this criminalized their constitutional right to refuse a warrantless search, while the governments’ argued they needed this power in order to effectively address drunk driving in their jurisdictions. The Court decided that refusing a breath test could be criminalized because requiring the test did not violate the driver’s constitutional rights, however the Court also ruled that because of the invasive …
Birchfield V. North Dakota: Warrantless Breath Tests And The Fourth Amendment, Sara Jane Schlafstein
Birchfield V. North Dakota: Warrantless Breath Tests And The Fourth Amendment, Sara Jane Schlafstein
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
In Birchfield v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court explored warrantless breath tests during DUI stops and their validity under the Fourth Amendment. To determine their constitutionality, the Court adopted a balancing test, weighing the government’s interest in preventing instances of drunk driving with the intrusion on an individual’s privacy. The Court ultimately concluded that warrantless breath tests are constitutional when conducted incident to a lawful DUI arrest. This commentary explores the Court’s reasoning and holding and will argue that the Court was correct in deciding that a warrant is not necessary for conducting a breath test incident to a …
Carpenter V. United States: Brief Of Scholars Of Criminal Procedure And Privacy As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Andrew Ferguson
Carpenter V. United States: Brief Of Scholars Of Criminal Procedure And Privacy As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Andrew Ferguson
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
Amici curiae are forty-two scholars engaged in significant research and/or teaching on criminal procedure and privacy law. This brief addresses issues that are within amici’s particular areas of scholarly expertise. They have a shared interest in clarifying the law of privacy in the digital era, and believe that a review of scholarly literature on the topic is helpful to answering the question in this case. This brief is co-authored by Harry Sandick, Kathrina Szymborski, & Jared Buszin of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.Carpenter v. United States presents an opportunity to reconsider the Fourth Amendment in the digital age. Cell …
Standing After Snowden: Lessons On Privacy Harm From National Security Surveillance Litigation, Margot E. Kaminski
Standing After Snowden: Lessons On Privacy Harm From National Security Surveillance Litigation, Margot E. Kaminski
Publications
Article III standing is difficult to achieve in the context of data security and data privacy claims. Injury in fact must be "concrete," "particularized," and "actual or imminent"--all characteristics that are challenging to meet with information harms. This Article suggests looking to an unusual source for clarification on privacy and standing: recent national security surveillance litigation. There we can find significant discussions of what rises to the level of Article III injury in fact. The answers may be surprising: the interception of sensitive information; the seizure of less sensitive information and housing of it in a database for analysis; and …