Fourth Amendment Commons^™

Cause To Believe What? The Importance Of Defining A Search's Object—Or, How The Aba Would Analyze The Nsa Metadata Surveillance Program, Christopher Slobogin

Oklahoma Law Review

Courts and scholars have devoted considerable attention to the definition of probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Since the demise of the “mere evidence rule” in the 1960s, however, they have rarely examined how these central Fourth Amendment concepts interact with the “object” of the search. That is unfortunate, because this interaction can have significant consequences. For instance, probable cause to believe that a search “might lead to evidence of wrongdoing” triggers a very different inquiry than probable cause to believe that a search “will produce evidence of criminal activity.” The failure to address the constraints that should be imposed on …

Third Party Records Protection On The Model Of Heightened Scrutiny, Marc J. Blitz

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Light In The Darkness: How The Leatpr Standards Guide Legislators In Regulating Law Enforcement Access To Cell Site Location Records, Susan Freiwald

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Aba Standards For Criminal Justice: Law Enforcement Access To Third Party Records: Critical Perspectives From A Technology-Centered Approach To Quantitative Privacy, David C. Gray

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ubiquitous Privacy, Thomas P. Crocker

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Big Data Distortions: Exploring The Limits Of The Aba Leatpr Standards, Andrew G. Ferguson

Oklahoma Law Review

Before moving on to my contribution about how the growing reliance on big data analytics may necessitate a slight modification to the ABA Standards on Law Enforcement Access to Third Party Records (LEATPR Standards), I would like first to pay a few compliments to the drafters of the LEATPR Standards for producing such a systematic, thoughtful, and elegant framework for considering Fourth Amendment freedoms. As anyone who writes about or teaches the Fourth Amendment knows, the doctrine remains a theoretical muddle. Yet, despite a minefield of conflicting precedent, the drafters of the LEATPR Standards have managed to construct a defensible …

Our Records Panopticon And The American Bar Association Standards For Criminal Justice, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

"Secrets are lies. Sharing is caring. Privacy is theft." So concludes the main character in Dave Egger’s novel The Circle, in which a single company that unites Google, Facebook, and Twitter – and on steroids – has the ambition not only to know, but also to share, all of the world's information. It is telling that a current dystopian novel features not the government in the first instance, but instead a private third party that, through no act of overt coercion, knows so much about us. This is indeed the greatest risk to privacy in our day, both the unprecedented …

Reforming The Grand Jury To Protect Privacy In Third Party Records, Andrew Taslitz, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

In late 2014, two grand juries returned controversial no bill decisions in police killings, one in Ferguson, Missouri, and one in New York City. These outcomes have renewed calls for grand jury reform, and whatever one thinks of these particular processes and outcomes, such reform is long overdue. One logical source of reform to better respect privacy in records, which would have incidental benefits beyond this privacy focus, would be the newly enacted American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice on Law Enforcement Access to Third Party Records (LEATPR).

But LEATPR exempts from its requirements access to records via a …

Who Should Be The ‘Decider’ On Keeping Our Secrets?, Stephen Henderson

Other Faculty Publications

An invited essay for Constitution Day, also available here: http://blogs.law.widener.edu/constitution2013/2013-essay-authors/stephen-henderson/It addresses the national security surveillance disclosed by Edward Snowden and others, and asks whether a fundamental shift would be prudent in the era of Big Data.

American Bar Association Criminal Justice Standards On Law Enforcement Access To Third Party Records, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Books and Book Chapters

Drafted over the past six years and adopted by the American Bar Association (ABA) House of Delegates in February, 2012, these Criminal Justice Standards on Law Enforcement Access to Third Party Records provide much needed guidance to legislatures, courts, and administrative agencies having to decide how to regulate law enforcement access to existing records in the hands of third parties. It is the first framework of its kind, and it can do much to improve the current system of ad hoc protections in both state and federal systems. Decision makers are struggling to determine when to permit law enforcement access …

Five Answers And Three Questions After United States V. Jones (2012), The Fourth Amendment "Gps Case", Benjamin J. Priester

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Alex Kozinski And The Investigation Of Earl Bradley Teach About Searching And Seizing Computers And The Dangers Of Inevitable Discovery, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

This paper tells two stories. One concerns the investigation of a Delaware physician named Earl B. Bradley that resulted in a conviction and sentence of fourteen consecutive life terms for the sexual abuse of children. The other concerns the computer problems, both judicial and extra-judicial, of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Though in a sense unrelated, they share lessons about the practicalities of computers and their search that are worth telling. As courts continue to struggle with how to cabin the searches of computers in order to minimize privacy intrusion …

Search, Seizure, And Immunity: Second-Order Normative Authority And Rights, Stephen E. Henderson, Kelly Sorensen

Faculty Articles

A paradigmatic aspect of a paradigmatic kind of right is that the rights holder is the only one who can alienate it. When individuals waive rights, the normative source of that waiving is normally taken to be the individual herself. This moral feature—immunity—is usually in the background of discussions about rights. We bring it into the foreground here, with specific attention to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Kentucky v. King (2011), concerning search and seizure rights. An entailment of the Court’s decision is that, at least in some cases, a right can be removed by the intentional actions of …

After United States V. Jones, After The Fourth Amendment Third Party Doctrine, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

In United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the proposition that the Government can surreptitiously electronically track vehicle location for an entire month without Fourth Amendment restraint. While the Court's three opinions leave much uncertain, in one perspective they fit nicely within a long string of cases in which the Court is cautiously developing new standards of Fourth Amendment protection, including a rejection of a strong third party doctrine. This Article develops that perspective and provides a cautiously optimistic view of where search and seizure protections may be headed.

More detail:

United States v. Jones, in which the …

Real-Time And Historic Location Surveillance After United States V. Jones: An Administrable, Mildly Mosaic Approach, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

In United States v. Jones, the government took an extreme position: so far as the federal Constitution is concerned, law enforcement can surreptitiously electronically track the movements of any American over the course of an entire month without cause or restraint. According to the government, whether the surveillance be for good reason, invidious reason, or no reason, the Fourth Amendment is not implicated. Fortunately, that position was unanimously rejected by the High Court. The Court did not, however, resolve what restriction or restraint the Fourth Amendment places upon location surveillance, reflecting a proper judicial restraint in this nuanced and difficult …

Anonymous Tips Alleging Drunk Driving: Why "One Free Swerve" Is One Too Many, James Michael Scears

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Expectations Of Privacy In Social Media, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

This article, which largely tracks my remarks at Mississippi College’s Social Media Symposium, examines expectations of privacy in social media such as weblogs (blogs), Facebook pages, and Twitter tweets. Social media is diverse and ever-diversifying, and while I address some of that complexity, I focus on the core functionality, which provides the groundwork for further conversation as the technology and related social norms develop. As one would expect, just as with our offline communications and other online communications, in some we have an expectation of privacy that is recognized by current law, in some we have an expectation of privacy …

Big Brother Is Watching: The Reality Show You Didn't Audition For, Amy Dillard

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Timely Demise Of The Fourth Amendment Third Party Doctrine, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

In what may be a slightly premature obituary, in this response to a forthcoming paper by Matthew Tokson I argue that the Fourth Amendment third party doctrine "has at least taken ill, and it can be hoped it is an illness from which it will never recover." It is increasingly unpopular as a matter of state constitutional law, has long been assailed in scholarship but now thoughtful alternatives are percolating, and it cannot – or at least should not – withstand the pressures which technology and social norms are placing upon it. Even the Supreme Court seems loath to defend …

‘Move On’ Orders As Fourth Amendment Seizures, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

If a police officer orders one to move on, must the recipient comply? This article analyzes whether there is a federal constitutional right to remain, and in particular whether a police command to move on constitutes a seizure of the person for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Although it is a close question, I conclude that the Fourth Amendment typically does not restrict a move on (MO) order, and that substantive due process only prohibits the most egregious such orders. It is a question of broad significance given the many legitimate reasons police might order persons to move on, as …

There Is No Place Like Home: The Supreme Court's Refusal To Allow Searches Of The Home Based On Disputed Consent In Georgia V. Randolph, Kyle Evans

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Beyond The (Current) Fourth Amendment: Protecting Third-Party Information, Third Parties, And The Rest Of Us Too, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

For at least thirty years the Supreme Court has adhered to its third-party doctrine in interpreting the Fourth Amendment, meaning that so far as a disclosing party is concerned, information in the hands of a third party receives no Fourth Amendment protection. The doctrine was controversial when adopted, has been the target of sustained criticism, and is the predominant reason that the Katz revolution has not been the revolution many hoped it would be. Some forty years after Katz the Court's search jurisprudence largely remains tied to property conceptions. As I have demonstrated elsewhere, however, the doctrine is not the …

The Technology Of Surveillance: Will The Supreme Court's Expectations Ever Resemble Society's?, Stephen Henderson

Other Faculty Publications

For law students studying criminal procedure—or at least for those cramming for the exam—it becomes a mantra: government conduct only implicates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches if it invades a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” This is not the contemporary definition of the word “search,” nor was it the definition at the time of the founding. But, via a well-intentioned concurrence by Justice Harlan in the famous 1967 case of Katz v. United States, it became the Court’s definition.This lack of fealty to the English language left some questions. For example, is determining whether someone has a “reasonable expectation …

Learning From All Fifty States: How To Apply The Fourth Amendment And Its State Analogs To Protect Third Party Information From Unreasonable Search, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

We are all aware of, and many commentators are critical of, the Supreme Court's third-party doctrine, under which information provided to third parties receives no Fourth Amendment protection. This constitutional void becomes increasingly important as technology and social norms dictate that increasing amounts of disparate information are available to third parties. But we are not solely dependent upon the Federal Constitution. We may have more constitutional protection as citizens of states, each of which has a constitutional cognate or analog to the Federal Fourth Amendment. As Justice Brennan urged in a famous 1977 article, those provisions should be interpreted to …

Nothing New Under The Sun? A Technologically Rational Doctrine Of Fourth Amendment Search, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Yet as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, the Amendment places no restriction on police combing through financial records; telephone, e-mail and website transactional records; or garbage left for collection. Indeed there is no protection for any information knowingly provided to a third party, because the provider is said to retain no reasonable expectation of privacy in that information. As technology dictates that more and more of our personal lives are available to anyone equipped to receive them, and as social norms dictate that more and …

Drug-Detection Dogs, Traffic Stops, And The Fourth Amendment, Michael J. Fields

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure: Searching High And Low For A Search In Kyllo: Justice Scalia Reaffirms Core Protections Of The Fourth Amendment, Scott Byrd

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cultural Context Matters: Terry's "Seesaw Effect", Frank Rudy Cooper

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Deadly Cure: The Supreme Court's Dangerous Medicine In Ferguson V. City Of Charleston, George M. Dery Iii

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure: Atwater V. City Of Lago Vista: The Due Process Dilemma Of Fourth Amendment Seizures For Traffic Violations, Amy J. Nelson

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.