Fourth Amendment Commons^™

People V. Buza: A Step In The Wrong Direction, Emily R. Pincin

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Stingray Cell-Site Simulator Surveillance And The Fourth Amendment In The Twenty-First Century: A Review Of The Fourth Amendment In An Age Of Surveillance, And Unwarranted, Harvey Gee

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Review discusses two timely and insightful books examining the changing relationship between privacy and the Fourth Amendment in the digital era. Part I discusses the tensions between the need to protect privacy rights and the slowly evolving legal landscape during a time of rapidly changing technology, to introduce David Gray’s The Fourth Amendment in an Age of Surveillance. His book explains how the Fourth Amendment, though embattled, can have a prominent role in twenty-first century discussions of privacy, technology, and surveillance. Gray’s analysis is engaged to broaden the conversation about Stingray technology. This section analyzes a sampling of …

Unlimited Data Search Plan: Warrantless Border Search Of Mobile Device Data Likely Unconstitutional For Violating The Fundamental Right To Informational Privacy, Atanu Das

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Part I of this Article discusses a case in which a United States citizen was subject to an unconstitutional warrantless border search of his mobile device data. Part II explains the history and current state of Supreme Court jurisprudence of the border search exception doctrine. Part III explains the way in which Supreme Court jurisprudence finds the right to informational privacy for mobile device data to be a fundamental right. Part IV discusses the reluctance of some legal commentators to find that a governmental intrusion on the right to informational privacy is subject to strict scrutiny. Part V finds …

Privacy, Eavesdropping, And Wiretapping Across The United States: Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy And Judicial Discretion, Carol M. Bast

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

One-party consent and all-party consent eavesdropping and wiretapping statutes are two broad pathways for legislation to deal with the problem of secret taping and some states protect conversation under state constitutions. Whether a conversation is protected against being taped as a private conversation is often gauged by the reasonable expectation of privacy standard. Judges in both all-party consent and one-party consent jurisdictions have had to use their leeway under the reasonable expectation of privacy standard to arrive at what at the time seemed to be the most appropriate solution, perhaps in doing so creating a case law exception.

The Fourth Amendment Inventory As A Check On Digital Searches, Laurent Sacharoff

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Police and federal agents generally must obtain a warrant to search the tens of thousands of devices they seize each year. But once they have a warrant, courts afford these officers broad leeway to search the entire device, every file and folder, all metadata and deleted data, even if in search of only one incriminating file. Courts avow great reverence for the privacy of personal information under the Fourth Amendment but then claim there is no way to limit where an officer might find the target files, or know where the suspect may have hidden them.

These courts have a …

Broadcasting Borders: Why Forensic Extraterritorial Electronic Border Searches For Contraband Do Not Require Reasonable Suspicion Under The Fourth Amendment, Rory Mcclain

Upper Level Writing Requirement Research Papers

No abstract provided.

Recalibrating Suspicion In An Era Of Hazy Legality, Deborah Ahrens

Seattle University Law Review

After a century of employing varying levels of prohibition enforced by criminal law, the United States has entered an era where individual states are rethinking marijuana policy, and the majority of states have in some way decided to make cannabis legally available. This symposium Article will offer a description of what has happened in the past few years, as well as ideas for how jurisdictions can use the changing legal status of cannabis to reshape criminal procedure more broadly. This Article will recommend that law enforcement no longer be permitted use the smell of marijuana as a reason to search …

A Unified Constitutional View Of Financial Punishment: Synthesizing The Excessive Fines Clause And Bearden­ Based Protections, Joshua A. Feinzig

Faculty Scholarship

This Note coordinates the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause with the Fourteenth Amendment wealth-discrimination protection set forth in Bearden v. Georgia It is generally assumed that the two protections operate independently: while the Excessive Fines Clause protects individuals against exorbitant financial obligations, Bearden limits the state from converting criminal debt into a severe liberty deprivation. But in recognizing how the two doctrines are normatively and functionally reinforcing, this Note proposes a single framework for considering financial punishment's constitutionality.

If the Eighth Amendment protection applies at the imposition of a financial punishment, Bearden provides a "second look" at the constitutionality of …

The Sativas And Indicas Of Proof: Why The Smell Of Marijuana Should Not Establish Probable Cause For A Warrantless Vehicle Search In Illinois, 53 Uic J. Marshall L. Rev. 187 (2020), Cece White

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

42nd Annual Foulston-Siefkin Lecture: The Next Wave Of Fourth Amendment Challenges After Carpenter, Matthew Tokson

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

This is an edited and adapted version of the 42nd Annual Foulston Siefkin Lecture, delivered at Washburn University School of Law.

The lecture discusses the future of Fourth Amendment law following the Supreme Court’s enormously important decision in Carpenter v. United States. It analyzes Carpenter and argues that its detailed account of the privacy harms caused by government surveillance will be its most important legacy. Moreover, the Court’s emphasis on the risk of privacy harm is not a one-off or a sharp break from previous practice. Carpenter is consistent with a long line of Supreme Court decisions ignoring or reshaping …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Protecting Online Privacy In The Digital Age: Carpenter V. United States And The Fourth Amendment’S Third-Party Doctrine, Cristina Del Rosso, Carol M. Bast

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

The goal of this paper is to examine the future of the third-party doctrine with the proliferation of technology and the online data we are surrounded with daily, specifically after the Supreme Court’s decision in Carpenter v. United States. It is imperative that individuals do not forfeit their Constitutional guarantees for the benefit of living in a technologically advanced society. This requires an understanding of the modern-day functional equivalents of “papers” and “effects.”

Looking to the future, this paper contemplates solutions on how to move forward in this technology era by scrutinizing the relevancy of the third-party doctrine due …

Privacy And Pandemics, Clarisa Long

Faculty Scholarship

The beginning of 2020 marked an unexpected turn for the world, the global pandemic of COVID-19 has affected every aspect of life. It has also created an unprecedented opportunity for governments to justify the expansion of their surveillance and collection of data. The foregoing essay, which was first published in Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive of the Columbia Law School focuses on two types of data collection – governmental mass collection of nonanonymized location data and state-collected nonanonymized data on people's health and immunity status. Several countries have applied one or both practices and it is relevant to look into …

Whether Narcotics Discovered In A Trash Pull, Standing Alone, Can Form Probable Cause To Search A Home, Jackson Jones

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Origins And Legacy Of The Fourth Amendment Reasonableness Balancing Model, Kit Kinports

Faculty Scholarship

The overwhelming majority of the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment cases over the past fifty years have been resolved using a warrant presumption model, which determines the constitutionality of a search or seizure by asking whether law enforcement officials had probable cause and a warrant, or some exception to those requirements. But three decisions, beginning in 2001, mysteriously deviated from that approach and applied a reasonableness balancing model, upholding the searches in those cases after considering the totality of the circumstances and weighing the competing government interests against the defendant’s privacy interests. This balancing approach has justifiably been criticized as amorphous, …

Police Brutality And State-Sanctioned Violence In 21st Century America, Itohen Ihaza

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

The Purpose Paradox: A Linguistic Dilemma Within Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence, Luke Belflower

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Saving America’S Privacy Rights: Why Carpenter V. United States Was Wrongly Decided And Why Courts Should Be Promoting Legislative Reform Rather Than Extending Existing Privacy Jurisprudence, David Stone

St. Mary's Law Journal

Privacy rights are under assault, but the Supreme Court’s judicial intervention into the issue, starting with Katz v. United States and leading to the Carpenter v. United States decision has created an inconsistent, piecemeal common law of privacy that forestalls a systematic public policy resolution by Congress and the states. In order to reach a satisfactory and longlasting resolution of the problem consistent with separation of powers principles, the states should consider a constitutional amendment that reduces the danger of pervasive technologyaided surveillance and monitoring, together with a series of statutes addressing each new issue posed by technological change as …

The Old Bailment Doctrine: The Answer To Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence In The Digital Age, Shane Gallant

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court And The Illegitimacy Of Lawless Fourth Amendment Policing, Ayesha B. Hardaway

Faculty Publications

For more than half a century, documented police brutality has affected communities of color and the American legal system has largely failed to address it. Beginning with Rizzo v. Goode, Supreme Court decisions have allowed local police departments nearly unlimited discretion in their policies and practices. That decision and others demonstrate that the Supreme Court is misaligned with governmental initiated reforms. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which allows the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to investigate law enforcement agencies’ practices and seek injunctive relief against agencies found to have engaged …

United States V. Touset, Katelyn James

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

A New Era: Digital Curtilage And Alexa-Enabled Smart Home Devices, Johanna Sanchez

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Would Mlk Do?: A Civil Rights Model Of “Good Citizenship” In Criminal Procedure, Trevor George Gardner

Scholarship@WashULaw

Good citizenship and eager participation in police investigations would seem to fit hand-in-glove. The good citizen helps to enforce the criminal law, particularly if the physical safety of the citizenry is thought to be at risk. But as Bennett Capers argues in his essay, Criminal Procedure and the Good Citizen, this version of the good citizen—crafted and propagated by our nation’s highest court—falls into direct tension with the activist principles animating the Civil Rights Movement. For instance, Martin Luther King, Jr., insisted that the citizen not suffer from a cultural condition Capers describes as “too much respect for majoritarian …

Excessive Force: A Feasible Proximate Cause Approach, Latasha M. James

University of Richmond Law Review

Through an analysis of the statutory and case law surrounding the use of excessive force, this Comment will review how differentiating applications of the law have led to varying and sometimes unjust results. Jurisdictions differ regarding what pre-shooting conduct can be considered, what the “objective reasonableness” standard encompasses, and how tort law should impact this analysis. Therefore, this Comment works to provide a framework for the consistent application of the objective reasonableness standard. Part I reviews the proscribed levels of force, noting when the use of force becomes excessive, and discusses the tort concept of proximate cause and how the …

The Sacred Fourth Amendment Text, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court's jurisprudence governing the Fourth Amendment's "threshold"--a word meant to refer to the types of police actions that trigger the amendment's warrant and reasonableness requirements--has confounded scholars and students alike since Katz v. United States. Before that 1967 decision, the Court's decisions on the topic were fairly straightforward, based primarily on whether the police trespassed on the target's property or property over which the target had control. After that decision-which has come to stand for the proposition that a Fourth Amendment search occurs if police infringe an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable--scholars …

Core Criminal Procedure, Steven Arrigg Koh

Faculty Scholarship

Constitutional criminal procedural rights are familiar to contemporary criminal law scholars and practitioners alike. But today, U.S. criminal justice may diverge substantially from its centuries-old framework when all three branches recognize only a core set of inviolable rights, implicitly or explicitly discarding others. This criminal procedural line drawing takes place when the U.S. criminal justice system engages in law enforcement cooperation with foreign criminal justice systems in order to advance criminal cases.

This Article describes the two forms of this criminal procedural line drawing. The first is a “core criminal procedure” approach, rooted in fundamental rights, that arises in the …

In General Public Use: An Unnecessary Test In Fourth Amendment Searches Using Advanced Sensing Technology, Mike Petridis

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Suspicionless Witness Stops: The New Racial Profiling, Michael Gentithes

Akron Law Faculty Publications

Young men of color in high-crime neighborhoods are surrounded by poverty and crime, yet distrustful of the police who frequently stop, frisk, and arrest them and their friends. Every encounter with the police carries the potential for a new arrest or worse, fostering a culture of fear and distrust of law enforcement. That culture exacerbates the problems facing the officers patrolling these neighborhoods as more crimes go unsolved because witnesses are unwilling to come forward. In the past several decades, officers have responded by using a stop-and-frisk technique of dubious constitutionality to control crime. Despite its disastrous implications for the …

App Permissions & The Third-Party Doctrine (Symposium), Michael Gentithes

Akron Law Faculty Publications

In the spirit of Professor Tokson's effort to consider the next wave of Fourth Amendment cases likely to reach the Supreme Court, this essay addresses a looming technological challenge to the Court's third-party doctrine: the permissions that app developers obtain on our digital devices. Such permissions - which are either granted by the user upon installation of the app or permitted by the operating system without any user input - entitle app developers to access and send data from the device, such as the user's location services, motion sensors, contacts, calendars, social media accounts, camera, or microphone. Carpenter contracted the …

Pandemic Surveillance: The New Predictive Policing, Michael Gentithes, Harold J. Krent

Akron Law Faculty Publications

In Part I, we examine the growth of predictive policing, which similarly treats some individuals differently based on the likelihood that they will either commit or be the victim of a crime. If such surveillance does not lead to detention, incursion on the right to travel, or other loss of freedom, we believe such efforts to be constitutional, even though not always wise. Use of data to prioritize law enforcement efforts poses no insuperable constitutional obstacles. But deployment of predictive analytics can result in infringement on the right to liberty, as we relate. In Part II, therefore, we apply the …