Law Commons^™

Conversational Standing: A New Approach To An Old Privacy Problem, Christopher M. Drake

ExpressO

American society has long considered certain conversations private amongst the participants in those conversations. In other words, when two or more people are conversing in a variety of settings and through a variety of media, there are times when all parties to the conversation can reasonably expect freedom from improper government intrusion, whether through direct participation or secret monitoring. This shared expectation of privacy has been slow to gain judicial recognition. Courts have indicated that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution only protects certain elements of the conversation, such as where and how it takes place, but that …

The Liberal Assault On The Fourth Amendment, Christopher Slobogin

ExpressO

The Liberal Assault on the Fourth Amendment Christopher Slobogin As construed by the Supreme Court, the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement regulates overt, non-regulatory government searches of homes, cars, and personal effects–-and virtually nothing else. This essay is primarily about how we got to this point. It is fashionable to place much of the blame for today’s law on the Warren Court’s adoption of the malleable expectation of privacy concept as the core value protected by the Fourth Amendment. But this diagnosis fails to explain why even the more liberal justices have often gone along with many of the privacy-diminishing holdings …

Redefining The Right To Be Let Alone: Privacy Rights And The Constitutionality Of Technical Surveillance Measures In Germany And The United States, Nicole E. Jacoby

ExpressO

U.S. and German courts alike long have struggled to find the proper balance between protecting the privacy rights of criminal suspects and granting law enforcement officials the adequate tools to fight crime. The highest courts in each country have produced different paradigms for determining where the public sphere ends and the private sphere begins. In a series of cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has inquired whether a criminal defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy when the state conducted a warrantless search of the suspect’s person, premises, or belongings. Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court, in contrast, has asked whether an investigative …

The Place Of Covert Policing In Democratic Societies: An Empirical Study Of The U.S. And Germany, Jacqueline E. Ross

ExpressO

My study of undercover policing explores the ways in which democratic legal systems change when they legalize highly contested police practices that have long been quietly tolerated and accorded minimal scrutiny. Undercover policing is a prime of example of such a practice. It has long been subject to remarkably little legislative oversight and systematic regulation in the United States and Western Europe. It exists in a twilight of legality—a necessary evil, but one inviting anxieties about its legitimacy and consonance with the rule of law. Under pressure from the European Court of Human Rights, Germany (along with other Western European …

Reasonable Expectations Of Privacy And Novel Search Technologies: An Economic Approach, Steven Penney

ExpressO

The “reasonable expectation of privacy” test, which defines the scope of constitutional protection from governmental privacy intrusions in both the United States and Canada, is notoriously indeterminate. This indeterminacy stems in large measure from the tendency of judges to think of privacy in non-instrumentalist terms. This “moral” approach to privacy is normatively questionable, and it does a poor job of identifying the circumstances in which privacy should prevail over countervailing interests, such as the deterrence of crime.

In this paper, I develop an alternative, economically-informed approach to the reasonable expectation of privacy test. In contrast to the moral approach, which …

Changing Expectations Of Privacy And The Fourth Amendment, Robert Power

ExpressO

Public attitudes about privacy are central to the development of fourth amendment doctrine in two respects. These are the two “reasonableness” requirements, which define the scope of the fourth amendment (it protects only “reasonable” expectations of privacy), and provide the key to determining compliance with its commands (it prohibits “unreasonable” searches and seizures). Both requirements are interpreted in substantial part through evaluation of societal norms about acceptable levels of privacy from governmental intrusions. Caselaw, poll data, newspaper articles, internet sites, and other vehicles for gauging public attitudes after the September 11 attacks indicate that public concerns about terrorism and the …