Law Commons^™

The Empty Promise Of The Fourth Amendment In The Family Regulation System, Anna Arons

Faculty Publications

Each year, state agents search the homes of hundreds of thousands of families across the United States under the auspices of the family regulation system. Through these searches—required elements of investigations into allegations of child maltreatment in virtually every jurisdiction—state agents invade the home, the most protected space in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Accordingly, federal courts agree that the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement applies to family regulation home searches. But almost universally, the abstract recognition of Fourth Amendment protections runs up against a concrete expectation on the ground that state actors should have easy and expansive access to families’ homes. Legislatures …

Presumed Punishable: Sentencing On The Streets And The Need To Protect Black Lives Through A Reinvigoration Of The Presumption Of Innocence, Jelani Jefferson Exum

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

Following the police killing of George Floyd in the summer of 2020, there has been a renewed focus on protecting Black people in America from excessive police violence. While the images of George Floyd were shocking to the public, that level of extreme violence and disregard for life has been a common aspect of the lives of Black Americans throughout history. In America, Black people are "pre­sumed punishable." Due to the historical and persistent biases against Black people, Black people find themselves subject to false assumptions about their criminality and presumptions that they are deserving of punishment. This stands …

Dna Is Different: An Exploration Of The Current Inadequacies Of Genetic Privacy Protection In Recreational Dna Databases, Jamie M. Zeevi

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Part I of this Note discusses the fundamental science behind DNA and defines and explains the process of familial DNA searching. Part I also discusses how Carpenter v. United States provides a framework to begin thinking about the unique nature of DNA and privacy implications for its use, and why the revealing nature of this type of data warrants protection. Part II of this Note delves into the lack of constitutional and statutory protections for DNA in recreational DNA databases. First, Part II explains that traditional Fourth Amendment concepts, like search warrants, probable cause, reasonable expectation of privacy, third-party …

Stingray Cell-Site Simulator Surveillance And The Fourth Amendment In The Twenty-First Century: A Review Of The Fourth Amendment In An Age Of Surveillance, And Unwarranted, Harvey Gee

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Review discusses two timely and insightful books examining the changing relationship between privacy and the Fourth Amendment in the digital era. Part I discusses the tensions between the need to protect privacy rights and the slowly evolving legal landscape during a time of rapidly changing technology, to introduce David Gray’s The Fourth Amendment in an Age of Surveillance. His book explains how the Fourth Amendment, though embattled, can have a prominent role in twenty-first century discussions of privacy, technology, and surveillance. Gray’s analysis is engaged to broaden the conversation about Stingray technology. This section analyzes a sampling of …

Unlimited Data Search Plan: Warrantless Border Search Of Mobile Device Data Likely Unconstitutional For Violating The Fundamental Right To Informational Privacy, Atanu Das

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Part I of this Article discusses a case in which a United States citizen was subject to an unconstitutional warrantless border search of his mobile device data. Part II explains the history and current state of Supreme Court jurisprudence of the border search exception doctrine. Part III explains the way in which Supreme Court jurisprudence finds the right to informational privacy for mobile device data to be a fundamental right. Part IV discusses the reluctance of some legal commentators to find that a governmental intrusion on the right to informational privacy is subject to strict scrutiny. Part V finds …

A Warrant Requirement Resurgence? The Fourth Amendment In The Roberts Court, Benjamin J. Priester

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Over many years, the United States Supreme Court has developed an extensive body of precedent interpreting and enforcing the provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement agents conducting criminal investigations. Commonly called the “warrant requirement,” one key component of this case law operates to deem some police investigatory techniques to be unconstitutional unless they are conducted pursuant to a search warrant issued in advance by a judge. The terms of the doctrine and its exceptions also authorize other investigatory actions as constitutionally permissible without a search warrant. …

Nowhere To Run, Nowhere To Hide.* Applying The Fourth Amendment To Connected Cars In The Internet-Of-Things Era, Gregory C. Brown, Jr.

Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development

(Excerpt)

Part I of this Note will briefly discuss the key components of a Connected Car, identify who collects the data from the Car, and examine the various uses for the data. Part I also explores whether Car owners consent to the collection of their Car’s data. Part II-A will trace the historical development of the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment, which generally permits law-enforcement officers to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle. Part II-B will discuss how the Supreme Court has applied the Fourth Amendment to pre-Internet technologies. Part II-C will discuss two recent Fourth Amendment Supreme …

"Reasonable" Police Mistakes: Fourth Amendment Claims And The "Good Faith" Exception After Heien, Karen Mcdonald Henning

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Given Heien’s distinction between the standard under the Fourth Amendment and the standard for qualified immunity, we are left after Heien with the conclusion that the concept of “objectively reasonable” conduct varies depending on the type of claim the Court is addressing. In particular, Heien leaves open both the question of what constitutes a reasonable mistake of law for Fourth Amendment purposes and the question of how that answer relates to the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. This Article explores these questions. Part I examines how the Court has increased its tolerance of police mistakes, both in …

Beware The Friends You Keep And The Places You Sleep: The Fourth Amendments Limited Protection Over Visitors And Their Belongings, Alysha C. Preston

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note concludes that the Arizona Supreme Court correctly applied the possession test and strongly urges the Supreme Court to address the issue and follow in Arizona’s footsteps. The possession test not only provides the best guidance for both officers and courts, but also provides the most precision and clarity. More importantly, this approach aligns with current Supreme Court case law and conforms to established Fourth Amendment principles. Holding otherwise would gravely undermine policy, disregard current precedents, and undervalue the sole purpose for the Fourth Amendment’s existence: to protect one’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Part I examines the scope …

The Death Penalty On The Streets: What The Eighth Amendment Can Teach About Regulating Police Use Of Force, Jelani Jefferson Exum

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

The use of force by police officers has traditionally been analyzed through the lens of Fourth Amendment reasonableness. The Supreme Court has decided that the proper question regarding the excessiveness of police force is whether the police officer acted as a reasonable law enforcement officer. When that police force is fatal — what this Article deems the death penalty on the streets — the legal question is the same, leaving us with an analysis that requires a heavy reliance on the officer's version of events and a host of disagreement on what constitutes appropriate police action. Reasonable minds can, …