Law Commons^™

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 …

The Carpenter Test As A Transformation Of Fourth Amendment Law, Matthew Tokson

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

For over fifty years, the Fourth Amendment’s scope has been largely dictated by the Katz test, which applies the Amendment’s protections only when the government has violated a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.” This vague standard is one of the most criticized doctrines in all of American law, and its lack of coherence has made Fourth Amendment search law notoriously confusing. Things have become even more complex following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Carpenter v. United States, which has spawned its own alternative test for determining the Fourth Amendment’s scope. The emerging Carpenter test looks to the revealing nature …

Telephone Pole Cameras Under Fourth Amendment Law, Matthew Tokson

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

In a series of recent cases, police officers have mounted sophisticated surveillance cameras on telephone poles and pointed them at the homes of people suspected of a crime. These cameras often operate for months or even years without judicial oversight, collecting vast quantities of video footage on suspects and their activities near the home. Pole camera surveillance raises important Fourth Amendment questions that have divided courts and puzzled scholars.

These questions are complicated because Fourth Amendment law is complicated. This is especially the case today as Fourth Amendment law is in a transitional phase, caught between older and newer paradigms …

Smart Meters As A Catalyst For Privacy Law, Matthew Tokson

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

Smart utility meters raise several puzzling legal questions—and answering them can help point the way toward the future of Fourth Amendment and civil privacy law. This forum essay addresses two such issues: use restrictions on collected data, and voluntary data disclosure.

First, more than any other current technology, smart meters compel the development of use restrictions on collected data. The benefits of smart meters are potentially enormous, such that categorically prohibiting public utilities from collecting smart meter data is likely beyond the pale. Yet allowing law enforcement agents to obtain detailed or intimate data about the home without a warrant …

The Aftermath Of Carpenter: An Empirical Study Of Fourth Amendment Law, 2018-2021, Matthew Tokson

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

Fourth Amendment law is in flux. The Supreme Court recently established, in the landmark case Carpenter v. United States, that individuals can retain Fourth Amendment rights in information they disclose to a third party. In the internet era, this ruling has the potential to extend privacy protections to a huge variety of sensitive digital information. But Carpenter is also notoriously vague. Scholars and lower courts have tried to guess at what the law of Fourth Amendment searches will be going forward—and have reached different, contradictory conclusions.

This Article reports the results of a large-scale empirical study of the impact of …

Inescapable Surveillance, Matthew Tokson

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

Until recently, Supreme Court precedent dictated that a person waives their Fourth Amendment rights in information they disclose to another party. The Court reshaped this doctrine in Carpenter v. United States, establishing that the Fourth Amendment protects cell phone location data even though it is revealed to others. The Court emphasized that consumers had little choice but to disclose their data, because cell phone use is virtually inescapable in modern society.

In the wake of Carpenter, many scholars and lower courts have endorsed inescapability as an important factor for determining Fourth Amendment rights. Under this approach, surveillance that people cannot …

42nd Annual Foulston-Siefkin Lecture: The Next Wave Of Fourth Amendment Challenges After Carpenter, Matthew Tokson

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

This is an edited and adapted version of the 42nd Annual Foulston Siefkin Lecture, delivered at Washburn University School of Law.

The lecture discusses the future of Fourth Amendment law following the Supreme Court’s enormously important decision in Carpenter v. United States. It analyzes Carpenter and argues that its detailed account of the privacy harms caused by government surveillance will be its most important legacy. Moreover, the Court’s emphasis on the risk of privacy harm is not a one-off or a sharp break from previous practice. Carpenter is consistent with a long line of Supreme Court decisions ignoring or reshaping …

The Normative Fourth Amendment, Matthew Tokson

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

For decades, courts have used a “reasonable expectation of privacy” standard to determine whether a government action is a Fourth Amendment search. Scholars have convincingly argued that this test is incoherent, arbitrary, and incapable of protecting privacy against modern forms of surveillance. Yet few alternatives have been proposed, and those alternatives pose many of the same problems as the current standard.

This Article offers a new theoretical approach for determining the scope of the Fourth Amendment. It develops a normative model of Fourth Amendment searches, one that explicitly addresses the balance between law enforcement effectiveness and citizens’ interests inherent in …

Environmental Privacy, Katrina F. Kuh

Utah Law Review

The purpose of this Article is not to anticipate whether or how the Fourth Amendment might apply to specific efforts to collect information about environmentally significant individual behaviors. The purpose is to discern the considerations that have proven salient in balancing environmental regulation and privacy to date that may likewise be relevant to navigating privacy concerns that arise with respect to policy directed to environmentally significant individual behaviors.

In this regard, the Article’s survey suggests that neither the fact that environmentally significant individual behaviors must be aggregated to produce environmental harm nor the fact that individuals, as opposed to commercial …