Law Commons^™

Computationally Assessing Suspicion, Wesley M. Oliver, Morgan A. Gray, Jaromir Savelka, Kevin D. Ashley

University of Cincinnati Law Review

Law enforcement officers performing drug interdiction on interstate highways have to decide nearly every day whether there is reasonable suspicion to detain motorists until a trained dog can sniff for the presence of drugs. The officers’ assessments are often wrong, however, and lead to unnecessary detentions of innocent persons and the suppression of drugs found on guilty ones. We propose a computational method of evaluating suspicion in these encounters and offer experimental results from early efforts demonstrating its feasibility. With the assistance of large language and predictive machine learning models, it appears that judges, advocates, and even police officers could …

The Mosaic Theory In Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence: The Last Bastion Of Privacy In A Camera-Surveilled World, Auggie Alvarado

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Arrests: Legal And Illegal, Daniel Yeager

Georgia State University Law Review

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. An arrest—manifesting a police intention to transport a suspect to the stationhouse for booking, fingerprinting, and photographing—is a mode of seizure. Because arrests are so intrusive, they require roughly a fifty percent chance that an arrestable offense has occurred. Because nonarrest seizures (aka Terry stops), though no “petty indignity,” are less intrusive than arrests, they require roughly just a twenty-five percent chance that crime is afoot.

Any arrest not supported by probable cause is illegal. It would therefore seem to follow that any arrest supported by probable cause is legal. But it …

The Automated Fourth Amendment, Maneka Sinha

Emory Law Journal

Courts routinely defer to police officer judgments in reasonable suspicion and probable cause determinations. Increasingly, though, police officers outsource these threshold judgments to new forms of technology that purport to predict and detect crime and identify those responsible. These policing technologies automate core police determinations about whether crime is occurring and who is responsible.

Criminal procedure doctrine has failed to insist on some level of scrutiny of—or skepticism about—the reliability of this technology. Through an original study analyzing numerous state and federal court opinions, this Article exposes the implications of law enforcement’s reliance on these practices given the weighty interests …

The Unconstitutional Conditions Vacuum In Criminal Procedure, Kay L. Levine, Jonathan R. Nash, Robert A. Schapiro

Faculty Articles

For more than a century, the Supreme Court has applied the unconstitutional conditions doctrine in many contexts, scrutinizing government efforts to condition the tradeoff of rights for benefits with regard to speech, funding, and takings, among others. The Court has declined, however, to invoke the doctrine in the area of criminal procedure, where people accused of crime are often asked to—and often do—surrender their constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments in return for some benefit. Despite its insistence that the unconstitutional conditions doctrine applies broadly across the Bill of Rights, the Court’s jurisprudence demonstrates that the doctrine …

The Modern Border: The Government Can Search . . . Anything?, Abigail Nusbaum

FIU Law Review

The evolution of modern technology has introduced new obstacles in interpreting the Fourth Amendment’s application to searches of peoples’ effects. Specifically, the longstanding exception to the Fourth Amendment permitting searches at the international border in the absence of probable cause does not so neatly apply to forensic searches of cell phones. Consequently, a circuit split has emerged on two aspects of the issue: the scope of the border exception and the requisite level of suspicion within that exception. The Supreme Court should find that forensic cell phone searches at the international border implicate Fourth Amendment privacy interests, requiring the border …

Community Caretaking Exception Saves Lives . . . The Supreme Court Disagrees, Gabriella Lorenzo

Touro Law Review

As many are aware, the Fourth Amendment protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant is necessary for said activities. While there are a few exceptions to the warrant requirement, the Supreme Court recently held that the community caretaking exception does not extend to the home. Extending this exception to the home would allow police officers to enter and engage in functions that are unrelated to the investigation of a crime. Essentially, this exception would allow police to aid individuals and prevent serious, dangerous situations to protect the community. This Note discusses why the Supreme Court erred in …