Law Commons^™

The Positive Law Model Of The Fourth Amendment, William Baude, James Y. Stern

Faculty Publications

For fifty years, courts have used a “reasonable expectation of privacy” standard to define “searches” under the Fourth Amendment. As others have recognized, that doctrine is subjective, unpredictable, and conceptually confused, but viable alternatives have been slow to emerge. This Article supplies one.

We argue that Fourth Amendment protection should be anchored in background positive law. The touchstone of the search-and-seizure analysis should be whether government officials have done something forbidden to private parties. It is those actions that should be subjected to Fourth Amendment reasonableness review and the presumptive requirement to obtain a warrant. In short, Fourth Amendment protection …

Electronic Health Records And Medical Big Data: Law And Policy, Sharona Hoffman

Faculty Publications

This book helps readers gain an in-depth understanding of electronic health record (EHR) systems, medical big data, and the regulations that govern them. It is useful both as a primer for students and as a resource for knowledgeable professionals. The book analyzes the shortcomings and benefits of EHR systems, explores the law's response to the technology’s adoption, highlights gaps in the current legal framework, and develops detailed recommendations for regulatory, policy, and technological improvements. Electronic Health Records and Medical Big Data addresses not only privacy and security concerns, but also other important challenges, such as those related to data quality …

U.S. Media Law Update, Lyrissa Lidsky, Racheal Jones

Faculty Publications

In June 2015 the United States Supreme Court completed what was hailed as its most ‘liberal term of the ages’, issuing major decisions on controversial issues, such as same-sex marriage, affirmative action and the Affordable Care Act. The Court’s free press jurisprudence, however, remained largely unchanged after its last term. The Court did not decide any significant press cases. Instead, the Court sidestepped the opportunity to resolve important questions about the constitutional limits on the prosecution of threats made via social media in one notable case, and set a new, more speech-protective standard for determining when a law is content-based …