Law Commons^™

United States V. Jones: Changing Expectations Of Privacy In The Digital Age, Daniel W. Edwards

University of Denver Criminal Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is Tennessee V. Garner Still The Law, Eric M. Ziporin, Elliot J. Scott

University of Denver Criminal Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cops And Cars: How The Automobile Drove Fourth Amendment Law, Tracey Maclin

Faculty Scholarship

This is an essay on Professor Sarah A. Seo’s new book, Policing the Open Road: How Cars Transformed American Freedom (Harvard Univ. Press 2019). I focus on Professor Seo’s analysis of Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) and Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949). Carroll is important not only because it was the Court’s first car case. Understanding Carroll (and Brinegar, which solidified and expanded Carroll’s holding) is essential because, nearly one hundred years later, its logic continues to direct how the modern Court resolves Fourth Amendment claims of motorists. Put simply, a majority of today’s …

Contracting For Fourth Amendment Privacy Online, Wayne A. Logan, Jake Linford

Scholarly Publications

No abstract provided.

Airborne Argus?: St. Louis, Persistent Surveillance Systems, And Stabilizing The Lofty Aims Of Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence, Jacob Schlosser

SLU Law Journal Online

In October of last year, the City of St. Louis considered implementing an unprecedented aerial surveillance program. In this article, Jacob Schlosser discusses this powerful but legally questionable system.

Heien'S Mistake Of Law, Kit Kinports

Kit Kinports

The Supreme Court has been whittling away at the Fourth Amendment for decades. The Court's 2014 ruling in Heien v. North Carolina allowing the police to make a traffic stop based on a reasonable mistake of law generated little controversy among the Justices and escaped largely unnoticed by the press-perhaps because yet another Supreme Court decision reading the Fourth Amendment narrowly is not especially noteworthy or because the opinion's cursory and overly simplistic analysis equating law enforcement's reasonable mistakes of fact and law minimized the significance of the Court's decision. But the temptation to dismiss Heien as just another small …

Alexa, Amazon Assistant Or Government Informant?, Julia R. Shackleton Esq.

University of Miami Business Law Review

Alexa, are you listening to me? Technology has become an integral part of one’s everyday life with voice-controlled devices pervading our most intimate interactions and spaces within the home. The answers to our questions are now at our fingertips with the simple roll of the tongue “Alexa,” your very own personal intelligence assistant. This futuristic household tool can perform tasks that range from answering simple voice commands to ordering any online shopping. However, the advent of voice technology presents a myriad of problems. Concerns arise as these new devices live in the privacy of our homes while quietly listening for …

Evolving Societal Norms And The Fourth Amendment: Government Tracking Of Cellphone Locations In An Era Of Commercial Tracking, Paul Tahan

SLU Law Journal Online

In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court found that a warrant was required to obtain historical location data obtained from cell-site records connected with cellphone use. In this article, Paul Tahan examines whether this holding is likely to remain good law in an era where the GPS location of a smartphone is becoming increasingly public.

Reconsidering Missouri’S Warrant Suppression Standard, James Sanders

Missouri Law Review

The search warrant is a foundational component of the American criminal justice process. Designed to limit and prevent overreach by police and other law enforcement entities, the framers of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution sought to use warrants as a tool to control the scope and breadth of searches and seizures of private property. The Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements are a vital check on the proactive and ever-growing police efforts of state and federal authorities.

Customs, Immigration, And Rights: Constitutional Limits On Electronic Border Searches, Laura K. Donohue

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The warrantless search of travelers’ electronic devices as they enter and exit the United States is rapidly increasing. While the Supreme Court has long recognized a border-search exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, it applies to only two interests: promoting the duty regime and preventing contraband from entering the country; and ensuring that individuals are legally admitted. The government’s recent use of the exception goes substantially beyond these matters. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are using it to search electronic devices, and at times the cloud, for evidence of any criminal activity, …

The Supreme Court To Consider Warrantless Blood Draws, Javairia Khan

SLU Law Journal Online

In this article, Javairia Khan discusses how the Supreme Court has granted certiorari to hear a Wisconsin case about the constitutionality of warrantless blood draws of unconscious motorists.

Orwell's 1984 And A Fourth Amendment Cybersurveillance Nonintrusion Test, Margaret Hu

Margaret Hu

This Article describes a cybersurveillance nonintrusion test under the Fourth Amendment that is grounded in evolving customary law to replace the reasonable expectation of privacy test formulated in Katz v. United States. To illustrate how customary law norms are shaping modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, this Article examines the recurrence of judicial references to George Orwell’s novel, 1984, within the Fourth Amendment context when federal courts have assessed the constitutionality of modern surveillance methods. The Supreme Court has indicated that the Fourth Amendment privacy doctrine must now evolve to impose meaningful limitations on the intrusiveness of new surveillance technologies.

A …

In Defense Of The American Community Survey, Michael Lewyn

Scholarly Works

Discusses policy and constitutional arguments against the ACS, a yearly survey administered by the Census Bureau.

Welcome To Trump's Ice Age: Violations Of Undocumented Immigrants' Fourth Amendment Rights During Workplace Raids, Gianni Piantini

St. Thomas Law Review

This Comment addresses the implications of ICE agents violating Fourth Amendment rights of undocumented immigrants who have been unreasonably seized during workplace raids. Part II discusses how the Fourth Amendment protections extend to the workplace, as well as the influence of ICE on immigration law and how the Fourth Amendment applies in the immigration context. Part IH addresses how Trump's antiimmigrant oratory has encouraged ICE to conduct workplace raids, which result in egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment. Part III further addresses the effect of the holding in Delgado on workplace raids and how ICE has conducted the raids in …

The End Of Intuition-Based High-Crime Areas, Ben Grunwald, Jeffrey A. Fagan

Faculty Scholarship

In 2000, the Supreme Court held in Illinois v. Wardlow that a suspect’s presence in a “high-crime area” is relevant in determining whether an officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop. Despite the importance of the decision, the Court provided no guidance about what that standard means, and over fifteen years later, we still have no idea how police officers understand and apply it in practice. This Article conducts the first empirical analysis of Wardlow by examining data on over two million investigative stops conducted by the New York Police Department from 2007 to 2012.

Our results suggest …

Cops And Cars: How The Automobile Drove Fourth Amendment Law, Tracey Maclin

UF Law Faculty Publications

This is an essay on Professor Sarah A. Seo’s new book, Policing the Open Road: How Cars Transformed American Freedom (Harvard Univ. Press 2019). I focus on Professor Seo’s analysis of Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) and Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949). Carroll is important not only because it was the Court’s first car case. Understanding Carroll (and Brinegar, which solidified and expanded Carroll’s holding) is essential because, nearly one hundred years later, its logic continues to direct how the modern Court resolves Fourth Amendment claims of motorists. Put simply, a majority of today’s …