Law Commons^™

Deadly Force In Memphis: Tennessee V. Garner, John H. Blume

John H. Blume

On October 3, 1974, officers Hymon and Wright of the Memphis Police Department responded to a call about a burglary in progress. When they arrived at the address, a woman standing in the door told the officers that she had heard glass breaking and that someone was breaking into the house next door. Officer Hymon went around the near side of the house. When he reached the backyard, he saw someone run from the back of the house. With his flashlight, he found a person crouched next to a fence at the back of the yard, some thirty to forty …

Random, Suspicionless Searches Of Students' Belongings: A Legal, Empirical, And Normative Analysis, Jason P. Nance

Jason P. Nance

This Article provides a legal, empirical, and normative analysis of an intrusive search practice used by schools officials to prevent school crime: random, suspicionless searches of students’ belongings. First, it argues that these searches are not permitted under the Fourth Amendment unless schools have particularized evidence of a weapons or substance problem in their schools. Second, it provides normative considerations against implementing strict security measures in schools, especially when they are applied disproportionately on minority students. Third, drawing on recent restricted data from the U.S. Department of Education’s School Survey on Crime and Safety, it provides empirical findings that raise …

School Security Considerations After Newtown, Jason P. Nance

Jason P. Nance

On December 14, 2012, and in the weeks thereafter, our country mourned the deaths of twenty children and six educators who were brutally shot and killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Since the horrific massacre, parents, educators, and lawmakers have understandably turned their attention to implementing stronger security measures in schools. This essay provides important points for policymakers and school officials to consider before embarking on a new phase of school security upgrades.

Students, Security, And Race, Jason P. Nance

Jason P. Nance

In the wake of the terrible shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, our nation has turned its attention to school security. For example, several states have passed or are considering passing legislation that will provide new funding to schools for security equipment and law enforcement officers. Strict security measures in schools are certainly not new. In response to prior acts of school violence, many public schools for years have relied on metal detectors, random sweeps, locked gates, surveillance cameras, and law enforcement officers to promote school safety. Before policymakers and school officials invest more money in strict security measures, this Article provides …

School Surveillance And The Fourth Amendment, Jason P. Nance

Jason P. Nance

In the aftermath of several highly-publicized incidents of school violence, public school officials have increasingly turned to intense surveillance methods to promote school safety. The current jurisprudence interpreting the Fourth Amendment generally permits school officials to employ a variety of strict measures, separately or in conjunction, even when their use creates a prison-like environment for students. Yet, not all schools rely on such strict measures. Recent empirical evidence suggests that low-income and minority students are much more likely to experience intense security conditions in their school than other students, even after taking into account factors such as neighborhood crime, school …

'I Know My Rights, You Go'n Need A Warrant For That:' The Fourth Amendment, Riley's Impact, And Warrantless Searches Of Third-Party Clouds, Laurie Buchan Serafino

Laurie B. Serafino

Scholars have frequently suggested that the Fourth Amendment ought to be applied with varying degrees of rigor depending on the seriousness of the crime investigated. Courts have largely rejected such an offense-specific approach to constitutional protections, but have demonstrated deference to the Executive Branch in matters of national security in other contexts. The particularly heightened concern raised by the threat of terrorism suggests that, at least in the context of these most serious of cases, courts ought to engage in some form of balance that recognizes the uniquely strong government interest. Such an approach, however, has to recognize that the …

Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation In The October 2005 Term, Martin Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.

Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation From The October 2006 Term, Martin Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.

Neurotechnologies At The Intersection Of Criminal Procedure And Constitutional Law, Amanda C. Pustilnik

Amanda C Pustilnik

The rapid development of neurotechnologies poses novel constitutional issues for criminal law and criminal procedure. These technologies can identify directly from brain waves whether a person is familiar with a stimulus like a face or a weapon, can model blood flow in the brain to indicate whether a person is lying, and can even interfere with brain processes themselves via high-powered magnets to cause a person to be less likely to lie to an investigator. These technologies implicate the constitutional privilege against compelled, self-incriminating speech under the Fifth Amendment and the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure …

You Booze, You Bruise, You Lose: Analyzing The Constitutionality Of Florida’S Involuntary Blood Draw Statute In The Wake Of Missouri V. Mcneely, Francisco D. Zornosa

Francisco D Zornosa

No abstract provided.

Binary Searches And The Central Meaning Of The Fourth Amendment, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is frequently accused of doctrinal incoherence. A primary reason is the persistence of two competing conceptions of “unreasonable” search and seizure. The first is libertarian in character; it understands the Fourth Amendment’s command of reasonableness as establishing a constitutional boundary on investigative powers. On this view, the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure keeps society free by limiting the government’s investigative reach. The second conception understands the Fourth Amendment's prohibition as freedom against unjustified government intrusion. This conception of reasonableness is essentially pragmatic in character, balancing liberty and law-enforcement interests.

This article interrogates these competing conceptions by …

Criminal Innovation And The Warrant Requirement: Reconsidering The Rights-Police Efficiency Trade-Off, Tonja Jacobi, Jonah Kind

Tonja Jacobi

It is routinely assumed that there is a trade-off between police efficiency and the warrant requirement. But existing analysis ignores the interaction between police investigative practices and criminal innovation. Narrowing the definition of a search or otherwise limiting the requirement for a warrant gives criminals greater incentive to innovate to avoid detection. With limited police resources to develop countermeasures, police will often be just as effective at capturing criminals when facing higher Fourth Amendment hurdles. We provide a game theoretic model that shows that when police investigation and criminal innovation are considered in a dynamic context, the police efficiency rationale …

When Enough Is Enough: Location Tracking, Mosaic Theory, And Machine Learning, Steven M. Bellovin, Renée M. Hutchins, Tony Jebara, Sebastian Zimmeck

Renée M. Hutchins

Since 1967, when it decided Katz v. United States, the Supreme Court has tied the right to be free of unwanted government scrutiny to the concept of reasonable xpectations of privacy.[1] An evaluation of reasonable expectations depends, among other factors, upon an assessment of the intrusiveness of government action. When making such assessment historically the Court has considered police conduct with clear temporal, geographic, or substantive limits. However, in an era where new technologies permit the storage and compilation of vast amounts of personal data, things are becoming more complicated. A school of thought known as “mosaic theory” has stepped …

Checked In: Real-Time Geolocation Surveillance And The Fourth Amendment, Eric J. Struening

Eric J Struening

Leaks have revealed that the use of personal technology such as cell phones and e-mail plays a large part in how the government obtains national security information. However, it is still an open question of how far the protection of the Fourth Amendment provides an individual against government intrusion in that type of technology. This article examines how the Fourth Amendment applies to the real-time tracking of national security targets through technology. I argue that a non-physical, short-term, warrantless, real-time trace of an individual’s location for national security purposes will not infringe the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. As …

Whose Metadata Is It Anyways? Why Riley V. California Illustrates That The National Security Administration's Bulk Data Collection Is A Fourth Amendment Problem, Jesse S. Weinstein

Jesse S Weinstein

No abstract provided.

Abidor V. Napolitano: Suspicionless Cell Phone And Laptop Searches At The Border Compromise The Fourth And First Amendments, Adam Lamparello, Charles Maclean

Adam Lamparello

The article explores the December 31, 2013 Abidor decision where the federal district court upheld the ongoing application of the border search exception as applied to deep, forensic searches of laptops and other digital devices. That exception allows suspicionless searches of any persons, effects, and “closed containers” crossing a border into the United States, and laptops and external hard drives are generally considered “closed containers” under the border search exception. We argue that the border search exception, grounded as it is in pre-digital age fact patterns, should no longer serve as precedent for border searches of the immense memories of …

Amicus Brief -- Riley V. California And United States V. Wurie, Charles E. Maclean, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

Warrantless searches of cell phone memory—after a suspect has been arrested, and after law enforcement has seized the phone—would have been unconstitutional at the time the Fourth Amendment was adopted, and are unconstitutional now. Simply stated, they are unreasonable. And reasonableness—not a categorical warrant requirement—is the “touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis.”

Katz On A Hot Tin Roof: The Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy Is Rudderless In The Digital Age Unless Congress Continually Resets The Privacy Bar, Charles E. Maclean

Charles E. MacLean

The Katz reasonable expectation of privacy doctrine has lasting relevance in the digital age, but that relevance must be carefully and clearly guided in great detail by Congressional and state legislative enactments continually resetting the privacy bar as technology advances. In that way, the Katz “reasonableness” requirements are actually set by the legislative branch, thereby precluding courts from applying inapposite analogies to phone booths, cigarette packs, and business records. Once legislation provides the new contours of digital privacy, those legislative contours become the new “reasonable.”

This article calls upon Congress, and to a lesser extent, state legislatures, to control that …

The Rise And Fall Of The Exclusionary Rule, Albert E. Poirier Jr.

Albert E Poirier Jr.

The years between 1913 and 1967 saw a growing tendency on the part of the Supreme Court to allow the submission of evidence that had been gained unlawfully by the police or prosecutors. Since 1961, and particularly during the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts, the rules excluding evidence have steadily diminished. This paper seeks to review the history of the exclusionary rule.

Grounding Drones: Big Brother’S Tool Box Needs Regulation Not Elimination, Melanie M. Reid

Melanie M. Reid

One of the most significant contemporary issues in privacy law relates to law enforcement’s new domestic surveillance tool: unmanned aerial vehicles, also known as, drones. Law enforcement’s use of aerial surveillance as an investigatory tool is currently under attack. In the past, if law enforcement chose to follow a suspect throughout the day, either on the ground or in the air, they need not worry about seeking a warrant or determining whether probable cause or reasonable suspicion exists to justify their surveillance. Aerial surveillance of criminal suspects has been considered outside the protections of Fourth Amendment law. In the 1980’s, …

Constitutional Trespass, Laurent Sacharoff

Laurent Sacharoff

The "Not A Search" Game, John F. Stinneford

John F. Stinneford

No abstract provided.