Fourth Amendment Commons^™

Court Of Appeals Of New York – People V. Hall, Christopher Shishko

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

What Is The Essential Fourth Amendment?, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In More Essential Than Ever: The Fourth Amendment in the Twenty-First Century, Stephen Schulhofer provides a strong, popularized brief for interpreting the Fourth Amendment as a command that judicial review precede all non-exigent police investigative actions that are more than minimally intrusive. This review points out a few places where Schulhofer may push the envelope too far or not far enough, but concludes that More Essential Than Ever is a welcome reminder for scholars and the public at large that the Fourth Amendment is a fundamental bulwark of constitutional jurisprudence and deserves more respect than the Supreme Court has given …

New Police Surveillance Technologies And The Good-Faith Exception: Warrantless Gps Tracker Evidence After United States V. Jones, Caleb Mason

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Rehnquist And Panvasive Searches, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In the history of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist may have been the least friendly justice toward the view that the Fourth Amendment should be read expansively. Even he, however, might have interpreted the amendment to place more restrictions on modern law enforcement techniques than current caselaw does. Relying on a 1974 article authored by Rehnquist, this essay, written for a symposium on Rehnquist and the Fourth Amendment, describes his views on the types of requirements the Fourth Amendment imposes on the police, how decriminalization can protect privacy, and most importantly, why Rehnquist might have been willing to regulate surveillance …

Looking Through The Prism Of Privacy And Trespass: Smartphones And The Fourth Amendment, Saby Ghoshray

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

Technology in the twenty-first century has dramatically changed our lives, but the law has not kept pace with technological advances. The treatment of smartphones in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is no exception. This is made evident by the increasingly scattered outcomes of litigation involving the privacy interests of smartphone owners.' As the cross-jurisdictional inconsistencies of judicial decisions applying the Fourth Amendment to smartphones mount, I am drawn to seek answers from two foundational pillars of the Supreme Court's search and seizure jurisprudence: protection against invasions of privacy and the bulwark against trespass.

Eavesdropping Under New York And Federal Law: How New York Is Departing From Long-Standing Interpretations Mirroring Federal Law - People V. Rabb, Bailey Ince

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Vehicle Checkpoints: The Ever-Expanding Array Of Purposes For Which A Vehicle May Be Stopped - People V. Gavenda, Jan Lucas

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Roving Border Patrols In New York – Sometimes The Drug Smuggler Does Not Get Convicted: The Legal Limitations Regarding Vehicle Stops And Consent Searches Based Upon Reasonable Suspicion - People V. Banisadr, Robert Mitchell

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Do Automobile Passengers Have A Legitimate Expectation Of Privacy? An Analysis Of Reasonable Expectation Under The Fourth Amendment - People V. Howard, Lisa Belrose

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizure: New York Vs. Federal Approach - People V. Keita, Tillie S. Mirman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Inevitable Discovery Rule - Justice Served Or Justice Thwarted? - People V. Pinckney, Danielle M. Hansen

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

It’S In The Bag: Voluntariness, Scope, And The Authority To Grant Consent - United States V. Harris, Daniel Fier

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Revisiting "Special Needs" Theory Via Airport Searches, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

Controversy has raged since the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) introduced Advanced Imaging Technology, capable of producing detailed images of travelers' bodies, and "enhanced" pat frisks as part of everyday airport travel. In the face of challenges in the courts and in public discourse, the TSA has justified the heightened security measures as a necessary means to prevent terrorist attacks. The purpose of this Essay is to situate the Fourth Amendment implications of the new regime within a broader historical context. Most germane, after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) introduced sweeping new screening of air travelers in the 1960s and 1970s …

Making The Most Of United States V. Jones In A Surveillance Society: A Statutory Implementation Of Mosaic Theory, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Jones, a majority of the Justices appeared to recognize that under some circumstances aggregation of information about an individual through governmental surveillance can amount to a Fourth Amendment search. If adopted by the Court, this notion sometimes called "mosaic theory"-could bring about a radical change to Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, not just in connection with surveillance of public movements-the issue raised in Jonesbut also with respect to the government's increasingly pervasive record-mining efforts. One reason the Court might avoid the mosaic theory is the perceived difficulty of implementing it. This article …

Making Rights, Nancy Leong

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

By adjudicating cases, courts make constitutional rights. This Article considers the conditions under which this constitutional rights-making should take place. Ideally, constitutional rights-making should occur simultaneously in multiple remedial, factual, and procedural contexts; in reality, however, rights are undesirably confined to a single context. This situation has negative consequences for the endeavor of constitutional rights-making.

As a case study in rights-making, the Article offers a comprehensive quantitative and qualitative analysis of the Fourth Amendment. It presents an original data set cataloging every instance of Fourth Amendment rights-making in the federal appellate courts from 2005 and 2009. That data set shows …

The Supreme Court's Contemporary Silver Platter Doctrine, David C. Gray, Meagan Cooper, David Mcaloon

Faculty Scholarship

In a line of cases beginning with United States v. Calandra, the Court has created a series of exceptions to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule that permit illegally seized evidence to be admitted in litigation forums collateral to criminal trials. This “collateral use” exception allows the government to profit from Fourth Amendment violations in grand jury investigations, civil tax suits, habeas proceedings, immigration removal procedures, and parole revocation hearings. In this essay we argue that these collateral use exceptions raise serious conceptual and practical concerns. The core of our critique is that the collateral use exception reconstitutes a version of …

Indecent Exposure: Do Warrantless Searches Of Cell Phones Violate The Fourth Amendment?, Amy Vorenberg

Law Faculty Scholarship

This article argues that searches of student’s cell phone should require a warrant in most circumstances. The amount and personal nature of information on a smart phone warrants special Fourth Amendment protection. This issue is particularly relevant in the public school setting where administrators routinely confiscate phones from students caught using them in school. With more frequency, administrators are looking at the phones, scrolling through text messages and photos, and on some occasions, responding to text messages.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Safford v. Redding, acknowledges the special considerations that school children should be afforded in part because of the …

No More Chipping Away: The Roberts Court Uses An Axe To Take Out The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Tracey Maclin, Jennifer Rader

UF Law Faculty Publications

This article considers the current status of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule under the Roberts Court, as well as what the future holds for the rule. Despite Justice Kennedy’s 2006 declaration that “the continued operation of the exclusionary rule, as settled and defined by our precedents, is not in doubt,” this Article demonstrates why this is not the case. Kennedy’s statement is noteworthy and has been accorded substantial weight primarily because it was made at a time when it was thought that four Justices (Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) were prepared to announce the demise of …

A Unified Theory For Seizures Of The Person, Ronald J. Bacigal

Law Faculty Publications

Perhaps there is something about the final stages of their careers that causes people to resolve conflicts by reconciling the seemingly irreconcilable. Albert Einstein spent the last days of his career searching for a unified field theory that would eliminate the contradictory laws governing relativity and quantum mechanics. Stephen Hawking has taken up this quest which has been renamed a search for the Theory of Everything. On a “slightly” more modest level, I find the later stages of my career drawing me toward formulating a unified theory governing seizures of the person. The challenge is to blend three different tests …

Getting Back To The Fourth Amendment: Warrantless Cell Phone Searches, Mireille Dee

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Camreta And Al-Kidd: The Supreme Court, The Fourth Amendment, And Witnesses, Kit Kinports

Faculty Scholarship

Although few noticed the link between them, two Supreme Court cases decided in the same week last Term, Ashcroft v. al-Kidd and Camreta v. Greene, both involved the Fourth Amendment implications of detaining witnesses to a crime. Al-Kidd, an American citizen, was arrested under the federal material witness statute in connection with an investigation into terrorist activities, and Greene, a nine-year-old suspected victim of child abuse, was seized and interrogated at school by two state officials. The opinions issued in the two cases did little to resolve the constitutional issues that arise in witness detention cases, and in fact …

Predictive Policing And Reasonable Suspicion, Andrew Ferguson

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Predictive policing is a new law enforcement strategy to reduce crime by predicting criminal activity before it happens. Using sophisticated computer algorithms to forecast future events from past crime patterns, predictive policing has become the centerpiece of a new smart-policing strategy in several major cities. The initial results have been strikingly successful in reducing crime.This article addresses the Fourth Amendment consequences of this police innovation, analyzing the effect of predictive policing on the concept of reasonable suspicion. This article examines predictive policing in the context of the larger constitutional framework of “prediction” and the Fourth Amendment. Many aspects of current …

Virtual Blinds: Finding Online Privacy In Offline Precedents, Allyson W. Haynes

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

A person in a building shows a desire for privacy by pulling her blinds shut or closing her curtains. Otherwise, she cannot complain when her neighbor sees her undressing from the window, or when a policeman looks up from the street and sees her marijuana plants. In the online context, can we find an analogy to these privacy blinds? Or is the window legally bare because of the nature of the Internet?

This Article argues that by analyzing the privacy given to communications in the offline context, and in particular, by analyzing case law recognizing privacy in an otherwise public …

No More Chipping Away: The Roberts Court Uses An Axe To Take Out The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Tracey Maclin, Jennifer Marie Rader

Faculty Scholarship

This article considers the current status of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule under the Roberts Court, as well as what the future holds for the rule. Despite Justice Kennedy’s 2006 declaration that “the continued operation of the exclusionary rule, as settled and defined by our precedents, is not in doubt,” this Article demonstrates why this is not the case. Kennedy’s statement is noteworthy and has been accorded substantial weight primarily because it was made at a time when it was thought that four Justices (Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) were prepared to announce the demise of …

Notes On Borrowing And Convergence, Robert L. Tsai, Nelson Tebbe

Faculty Scholarship

This is a response to Jennifer E. Laurin, "Trawling for Herring: Lessons in Doctrinal Borrowing and Convergence," 111 Colum. L. Rev. 670 (2011), which analyzes the Supreme Court's resort to tort-based concepts to limit the reach of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule. We press three points. First, there are differences between a general and specific critique of constitutional borrowing. Second, the idea of convergence as a distinct phenomenon from borrowing has explanatory potential and should be further explored. Third, to the extent convergence occurs, it matters whether concerns of judicial administration or political reconstruction are driving doctrinal changes.

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

All Faculty Scholarship

In 1984, at the height of the Reagan-era war on drugs, the Supreme Court created a bright-line exception to Fourth Amendment protection by declaring that no person had a reasonable expectation of privacy in an area defined as an open field. When it created the exception, the Court ignored positive law and its own jurisprudence that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. The open fields doctrine allows law enforcement officers to enter posted, private areas that are not part of a house or its curtilage for brief surveillance. The Supreme Court has never “extended the open fields doctrine to …

Framing The Fourth, Tracey Maclin, Julia Mirabella

Faculty Scholarship

History is again an important element of the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment analysis. In Wyoming v. Houghton, Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court announced that a historical inquiry is the starting point for every Fourth Amendment case. William Cuddihy’s book on the origins and original meaning of the Fourth Amendment will undoubtedly assist the Justices (and everyone else) in understanding the history of search and seizure law.

Cuddihy’s historical analysis is unprecedented. As Justice O’Connor has described it, Cuddihy’s work is “one of the most exhaustive analyses of the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment ever undertaken.” Cuddihy reviewed thousands …

School Children And Parolees: Not So Special Anymore, Edwin Butterfoss

Faculty Scholarship

The Fourth Amendment special needs exception may be one of the Court’s most puzzling doctrines. Since its origin, the Court has struggled to define its limits and its place in the Court’s suspicionless search and seizure jurisprudence. At times the Court has suggested that the exception is the only route to upholding a search or seizure in the absence of individualized suspicion, while at other times it has stated that it is just one of a limited number of exceptions to the requirement of individualized suspicion. Historically, while the application of the special needs exception has been unpredictable, one thing …

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

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Framing The Fourth, Tracey Maclin, Julia Mirabella

UF Law Faculty Publications

Book Review of "The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Original Meaning", 602-1791. By William J. Cuddihy. Oxford and New York: Oxford Press. 2009. Pp. lxviii, 940. $165. History is again an important element of the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment analysis. In Wyoming v. Houghton, Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court announced that a historical inquiry is the starting point for every Fourth Amendment case. William Cuddihy’s book on the origins and original meaning of the Fourth Amendment will undoubtedly assist the Justices (and everyone else) in understanding the history of search and seizure law. Cuddihy’s historical analysis is unprecedented. As Justice …