Law Commons^™

I Spy With My Little--Gps Tracking Device: Why Georgia Should Look To The United Kingdom's Domestic Violence Laws To Deter Innovative Abuses Of Technology, Tyerus Skala

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

A New Era: Digital Curtilage And Alexa-Enabled Smart Home Devices, Johanna Sanchez

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cell Phones Are Orwell's Telescreen: The Need For Fourth Amendment Protection In Real-Time Cell Phone Location Information, Matthew Devoy Jones

Cleveland State Law Review

Courts are divided as to whether law enforcement can collect cell phone location information in real-time without a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. This Article argues that Carpenter v. United States requires a warrant under the Fourth Amendment prior to law enforcement’s collection of real-time cell phone location information. Courts that have required a warrant prior to the government’s collection of real-time cell phone location information have considered the length of surveillance. This should not be a factor. The growing prevalence and usage of cell phones and cell phone technology, the original intent of the Fourth Amendment, and United States …

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 …

Location Unaware: Developing A Standard Of Secondary Liability For Location-Aware Technology Developers, Joseph Phillip Sklar

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Out Of The “Serbonian Bog”1 Surrounding Government Acquisition Of Third-Party Cell Site Location Information: “Get A Warrant” †, Glenn Williams

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Incarcerating The Accused: Reforming Bail For The Pretrial Detention Of Juveniles And Youths Aged Eighteen To Twenty-One, Leigha A. Weiss

Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development

(Excerpt)

This note addresses the injustice of pretrial detention on juveniles, minors, and youths aged eighteen to twenty-one, in New York State. This note will address juveniles, aged eighteen to twenty-one, who are subject to criminal proceedings in adult criminal court and incarceration in adult criminal facilities as well as juveniles or minors below the age of criminal responsibility who are subject to juvenile delinquency proceedings and incarceration in juvenile detention facilities. So many youths are in unnecessary detentions under horrific conditions in adults and juvenile correctional facilities across the country. Serious bail reform is long overdue to provide humane …

"Connected" Discovery: What The Ubiquity Of Digital Evidence Means For Lawyers And Litigation, Gail Gottehrer

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

More than ten years ago, the Zubulake case raised awareness of the importance of digital evidence in litigation. At that time, for many lawyers, the discovery process consisted of collecting paper documents, manually reviewing those paper documents, and responding to document requests by producing paper documents. Digital evidence existed, but was more limited in scope and volume than it is today. Back then it was often overlooked or not recognized as a potential source of valuable evidence to be obtained in discovery.

County Court, Nassau County, People V. Lacey, Nicholas Melillo

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

County Court, Westchester County, People V. Gant, Albert V. Messina Jr.

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Court Loses Its Way With The Global Positioning System: United States V. Jones Retreats To The “Classic Trespassory Search”, George M. Dery Iii, Ryan Evaro

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

This Article analyzes United States v. Jones, in which the Supreme Court considered whether government placement of a global positioning system (GPS) device on a vehicle to follow a person’s movements constituted a Fourth Amendment “search.” The Jones Court ruled that two distinct definitions existed for a Fourth Amendment “search.” In addition to Katz v. United States’s reasonable-expectation-of-privacy standard, which the Court had used exclusively for over four decades, the Court recognized a second kind of search that it called a “classic trespassory search.” The second kind of search occurs when officials physically trespass or intrude upon a constitutionally protected …

Five Answers And Three Questions After United States V. Jones (2012), The Fourth Amendment "Gps Case", Benjamin J. Priester

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Mosaic Theory Of The Fourth Amendment, Orin S. Kerr

Michigan Law Review

In the Supreme Court's recent decision on GPS surveillance, United States v. Jones, five justices authored or joined concurring opinions that applied a new approach to interpreting Fourth Amendment protection. Before Jones, Fourth Amendment decisions had always evaluated each step of an investigation individually. Jones introduced what we might call a "mosaic theory" of the Fourth Amendment, by which courts evaluate a collective sequence of government activity as an aggregated whole to consider whether the sequence amounts to a search. This Article considers the implications of a mosaic theory of the Fourth Amendment. It explores the choices and puzzles that …

Track Me Maybe: The Fourth Amendment And The Use Of Cell Phone Tracking To Facilitate Arrest, Jeremy H. Rothstein

Fordham Law Review

Police use of technology to locate and track criminal suspects has drawn increasing attention from courts, commentators, and the public. In United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court held that police installation of a GPS tracking device on a suspect’s vehicle constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. Less attention has been paid to police tracking of cell phones—a far more common practice. Police can now locate a cell phone within several feet, using either GPS or information taken from cell towers.

In August 2011, the government asked a federal magistrate judge in Maryland to allow thirty days of …

"Reasonable Suspicion Plus": A Framework To Address Chief Judge Alex Kozinski's Concerns Of Mass Surveillance Without Compromising Police Effectiveness, Tyler R. Smith

Golden Gate University Law Review

Global Positioning Systems (GPS) provide law enforcement with a powerful tool to covertly investigate criminal networks. These networks, however, are often themselves technologically sophisticatedand thus able to elude police surveillance. GPS monitoring has drawn substantial criticism recently as police, in many jurisdictions, may utilize the technology without a search warrant; the issue has boiled down to whether the Fourth Amendment requires a search warrant in the first place.

This Comment argues that the Supreme Court should establish a new rule, “Reasonable Suspicion Plus,” that would require police to state in a sworn declaration particularized reasoning for use of a GPS …

Signal Lost: Is A Gps Tracking System The Same As An Eyeball?, Eric Andrew Felleman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat

On November 8th, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in United States v. Jones. One of the primary issues in the case is whether law enforcement personnel violated Mr. Jones' Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures by using a GPS tracking device to monitor the location of his car without a warrant. The 7th Circuit and the 9th Circuit have both recently held that use of GPS tracking is not a search under the Fourth Amendment.

How United States V. Jones Can Restore Our Faith In The Fourth Amendment, Erica Goldberg

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

United States v. Jones, issued in January of this year, is a landmark case that has the potential to restore a property-based interpretation of the Fourth Amendment to prominence. In 1967, the Supreme Court abandoned its previous Fourth Amendment framework, which had viewed the prohibition on unreasonable searches in light of property and trespass laws, and replaced it with a rule protecting the public’s reasonable expectations of privacy. Although the Court may have intended this reasonable expectations test to provide more protection than a test rooted in property law, the new test in fact made the Justices’ subjective views about …

The Fourth Amendment And Unwarranted Gps Surveillance: An Analysis Of The D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals’ Decision In United States V. Maynard, Margaret C. Eveker

Saint Louis University Public Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Limitations And Admissibility Of Using Historical Cellular Site Data To Track The Location Of A Cellular Phone, Aaron Blank

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

Imagine someone has just committed a crime. Shortly thereafter, law enforcement responds and quickly apprehends a suspect on the scene or close by. In order to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the time and place of apprehending the suspect, combined with witness testimony or physical evidence, may be enough for the prosecution to meet its burden of proof.

The Anatomy Of A Search: Intrusiveness And The Fourth Amendment, Renée Mcdonald Hutchins

University of Richmond Law Review

In this essay, I contend that when evaluating the constitutionality of enhanced surveillance devices, the existing test for assessing the occurrence of a Fourth Amendment search should be modified. Specifically, I suggest that intrusiveness should be unambiguously adopted by the Court as the benchmark for assessing and defining the existence of a search under the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, intrusiveness should be clearly defined to require an examination of two factors: the functionality of a challenged form of surveillance and the potential for disclosure created by the device.

Privacy Revisited: Gps Tracking As Search And Seizure, Bennett L. Gershman

Pace Law Review

Part I of this Article discusses the facts in People v. Weaver, the majority and dissenting opinions in the Appellate Division, Third Department decision, and the majority and dissenting opinions in the Court of Appeals decision. Part II addresses the question that has yet to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court—whether GPS tracking of a vehicle by law enforcement constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Part III addresses the separate question that the Court of Appeals did not address in Weaver—whether the surreptitious attachment of a GPS device to a vehicle constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. …

Back To Katz: Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy In The Facebook Age, Haley Plourde-Cole

Fordham Urban Law Journal

Part I of this Note discusses the evolution of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in reaction to advancing technology, the Supreme Court and circuit courts’ disposition in dealing with electronic “beeper” tracking (the technology that predated GPS), and the legal doctrine governing the government’s use of cellular phones to conduct surveillance of individuals both retroactively and in real-time. Part II examines the developing split among the federal circuits and state courts over whether GPS surveillance of vehicles constitutes a search, as well as the parallel concerns raised in recent published opinions by magistrate judges as to whether government requests for cell-site information …