Fourth Amendment Commons^™

Pc Peep Show: Computers, Privacy, And Child Pornography, 27 J. Marshall L. Rev. 989 (1994), John C. Scheller

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Consent Exception To The Warrant Requirement, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Right Of Privacy, Sustained, Gerard V. Bradley

Journal Articles

Traditionally the "right of privacy" concerned the security of certain places (chiefly, one's home) and, to a lesser extent, materials (books, papers) that were especially self-revealing. This right of privacy makes eminent philosophical sense, and it is protected by explicit constitutional guarantees, conspicuously including the Fourth Amendment, which provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." The Rehnquist Court has regularly accorded less weight to this privacy in the "balance" against "law enforcement interests" than did the Warren and Burger Courts. Expanded authority …

Anticipatory Search Warrants: The Supreme Court's Opportunity To Reexamine The Framework Of The Fourth Amendment, David P. Mitchell

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures," and provides that "no War-rants shall issue, but upon probable cause."' Although its language is relatively clear, the application of the Fourth Amendment has created more controversy than the application of perhaps any other constitutional amendment.' Given the questions raised by a police-endorsed practice of anticipatory search warrants,' the search and seizure debate is far from over.

An anticipatory search warrant is a warrant based on a showing of probable cause that particular evidence of a crime will exist at a specific location in the future. Challenges …

Florida V. Riley: The Emerging Standard For Aerial Surveillance Of The Curtilage, David J. Stewart

Vanderbilt Law Review

The expression, "a man's home is his castle," embodies one of the most cherished individual liberties in American society, the right to en-joy privacy and freedom from unreasonable government intrusion in the confines of one's home.' Recognizing the importance of this right, the first Senate adopted the fourth amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Initially, the United States Supreme Court narrowly construed the fourth amendment as protecting only physical intrusions of persons,houses, papers, and effects.4 Later, the Court expanded coverage of the fourth amendment to include the area immediately adjacent to the home and used in connection …

Diminishing Expectations Of Privacy In The Rehnquist Court, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 825 (1989), Laurence A. Benner

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Arizona V. Hicks: Probable Cause Requirement Under The Plain View Doctrine, 21 J. Marshall L. Rev. 903 (1988), Robert J. Kuker

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Griffin V. Wisconsin Warrantless Probation Searches - Do The State's Needs Warrant Such Strict Measures, 21 J. Marshall L. Rev. 921 (1988), William Blake Weiler

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Encouragement And The Fourth Amendment, 20 J. Marshall L. Rev. 661 (1987), Barry D. Green

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

State V. Delaurier: Privacy Rights And Cordless Telephones - The Fourth Amendment Is Put On Hold, 19 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1087 (1986), Donald Battaglia

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Securing Of The Premises Exception: A Search For The Proper Balance, Adam K. Peck

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Recent Development argues that although an opinion endorsed by only two justices is not binding precedent, this portion of Segura represents an undesirable departure from the strict protections traditionally afforded a person's privacy interest in the home and leaves lower courts confused about the constitutional limitations on seizures in the home. Part II examines prior Supreme Court opinions that have defined the parameters of permissible warrantless searches and seizures. Part III explores the circuit court opinions that have developed a "securing of the premises"exception. Part IV describes Chief Justice Burger's analysis in Segura. Part V argues that the Chief …

Closing The "Open Fields" Question: Oliver V. United States, Brian K. Jorgensen

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Property And Personal Privacy: Interrelationship, Abandonment And Confusion In The Path Of Judicial Review, 18 J. Marshall L. Rev. 847 (1985), Kenneth Mott, Lovette Mott

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Constitution And Informational Privacy, Or How So-Called Conservatives Countenance Governmental Intrustion Into A Person's Private Affairs, 18 J. Marshall L. Rev. 871 (1985), Michael P. Seng

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Use Of Surveillance Evidence Under Title Iii, Thomas C. Banks

Vanderbilt Law Review

The rationale offered by Congress for requiring immediate sealing of wiretapping tapes by the court upon the completion of the interception period is to preserve the integrity of the tapes by preventing any tape tampering, alteration, editing, or other governmental bad faith. Congress, however, also added an exception to the sealing requirement that permits disclosure of the tapes' contents in a judicial proceeding if the government has contravened the sealing requirement yet has offered a satisfactory explanation for either a failure to seal or a delay in sealing. No circuit court treats sealing requirement violations in a manner that effects …

Warrantless Vehicle Searches And The Fourth Amendment: The Burger Court Attacks The Exclusionary Rule, Steven D. Clymer

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Involuntary Commitment: The Move Toward Dangerousness, 15 J. Marshall L. Rev. 83 (1982), Robert Weissbourd

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Impact Of Smith V. Maryland On The Law Of Pen Registers, Mark Bialek

Antioch Law Journal

In Smith v. Maryland,' the Supreme Court was presented with the question of whether the installation and use of a pen register2 constitutes a "search" under the fourth amendment.3 The pen register is a device which can be used to determine the telephone numbers dialed from a phone under investigation or the number of rings on calls coming into the phone. The question was raised by petitioner Michael Lee Smith, who was convicted of robbery, at least in part, based on evidence obtained from the installation and use of a pen register.4 Smith claimed that the use of a pen …

Capacity To Contest A Search And Seizure: The Passing Of Old Rules And Some Suggestions For New Ones, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Professor Slobogin examines recent Supreme Court decisions involving standing to challenge search and seizure violations, and argues that the Court's commitment to a "totality of the circumstances" approach has permitted erosion of fourth amendment protections. After concluding that these decisions provide little guidance to lower courts, Professor Slobogin offers a set of principles which will aid in analyzing the Court's direction.

Police Use Of Cctv Surveillance: Constitutional Implications And Proposed Regulations, Gary C. Robb

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This article evaluates the constitutionality of CCTV "searches." Part I discusses the present uses being made of closed circuit technology and evaluates the merits of the CCTV surveillance system. The critical policy trade-off is the system's effectiveness in combatting crime against the resulting loss of privacy to individual citizens.

Part II considers the constitutional implications of CCTV use in terms of three major doctrines: the Fourth Amendment prohibition against "unreasonable searches and seizures"; the constitutional right of privacy; and the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and association. This part briefly summarizes the state of the law concerning these constitutional …

Visual Rape: A Look At The Dubious Legality Of Strip Searches, 13 J. Marshall L. Rev. 273 (1980), Paul R. Shuldiner

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pen Registers After Smith V. Maryland, John S. Applegate, Amy Applegate

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Reconsideration Of The Katz Expectation Of Privacy Test, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note, by modifying certain aspects of the reasonable expectation of privacy test, offers a theory that attempts to identify the minimum content of the fourth amendment. In the first section, the Note examines the reasonable expectation of privacy test and considers whether it has been or can be applied in a manner that fails to protect the right to have certain minimum expectations of privacy. It analyzes both the "actual" and the "reasonable" expectation requirements, identifies weaknesses inherent in the current application of these requirements, and suggests certain ways in which they might be refined. In the second section, …

The Life And Times Of Boyd V. United States (1886-1976), Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

In Boyd v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the fourth and fifth amendments create a zone of privacy encompassing an individual's person and property. The government, according to Boyd, cannot enter this zone, either by compelling an individual to testify against himself or by subpoenaing or seizing his books and papers for use as evidence against him in a criminal or quasi-criminal proceeding. The Court found an "intimate relation" between the two amendments such that the search and seizure of books and papers may be "unreasonable" even if conducted pursuant to a court order.

Over time, …

The Interception Of Communications Without A Court Order: Title Iii, Consent, And The Expectation Of Privacy, Clifford S. Fishman

Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

The Concept Of Privacy And The Fourth Amendment, Steven C. Douse

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article attempts at a minimum to offer a common background and frame of reference for defining and comparing myriad facets of the law. If successful, they furnish a model for the integration of these many facets. This inquiry begins with an examination of the proposition that the essence of the fourth amendment is protection of a right of privacy. The concept of privacy is then defined and elaborated, both without and within the constitutional context. These conclusions are further extended in an exploration of mechanisms for defining the invasions and protection of fourth amendment privacy.

Search And Seizure--Was The Right Of Privacy Taken To The Cleaners?, Dennis C. Sauter

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.