Fourth Amendment Commons^™

The Right To Remain Armed, Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

The laws governing gun possession are changing rapidly. In the past two years, federal courts have wielded a revitalized Second Amendment to invalidate longstanding gun carrying restrictions in Chicago, the District of Columbia, and throughout California. Invoking similar Second Amendment themes, legislators across the country have steadily deregulated public gun carrying, preempting municipal gun control ordinances in cities like Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Cleveland.

These changes to substantive gun laws reverberate through the constitutional criminal procedure framework. By making it lawful for citizens to carry guns even in crowded urban areas, enhanced Second Amendment rights trigger Fourth Amendment protections that could …

Obscured By Clouds: The Fourth Amendment And Searching Cloud Storage Accounts Through Locally Installed Software, Aaron J. Gold

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Innovation And The Warrant Requirement: Reconsidering The Rights-Police Efficiency Trade-Off, Tonja Jacobi, Jonah Kind

William & Mary Law Review

It is routinely assumed that there is a trade-off between police efficiency and the warrant requirement. But existing analysis ignores the interaction between law-enforcement investigative practices and criminal innovation. Narrowing the definition of a search or otherwise limiting the requirement for a warrant gives criminals greater incentive to innovate to avoid detection. With limited resources to develop countermeasures, law enforcement officers will often be just as effective at capturing criminals when facing higher Fourth Amendment hurdles. We provide a game-theoretic model that shows that when law-enforcement investigation and criminal innovation are considered in a dynamic context, the police efficiency rationale …

Future Of The Fourth Amendment: The Problem With Privacy, Poverty And Policing, Kami Chavis Simmons

Faculty Publications

For decades, the reasonable expectation of privacy has been the primary standard by which courts have determined whether a "search" has occurred within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court's recent decision in U.S. v. Jones, however, has reinvigorated the physical trespass doctrine's importance when determining whether there has been a "search" triggering constitutional protection. Recognizing the unpredictability of the reasonable expectation of privacy doctrine and that doctrine's bias against the urban poor, many scholars hope that the Jones opinion may ameliorate the class divide that has developed in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

This Article argues that while …

The Inverse Relationship Between The Constitutionality And Effectiveness Of New York City "Stop And Frisk", Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

New York City sits at the epicenter of an extraordinary criminal justice phenomenon. While employing aggressive policing tactics, such as “stop and frisk,” on an unprecedented scale, the City dramatically reduced both violent crime and incarceration – with the connections between these developments (if any) hotly disputed. Further clouding the picture, in August 2013, a federal district court ruled the City’s heavy reliance on “stop and frisk” unconstitutional. Popular and academic commentary generally highlights isolated pieces of this complex story, constructing an incomplete vision of the lessons to be drawn from the New York experience. This Article brings together all …

Section 6: Criminal, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Binary Searches And The Central Meaning Of The Fourth Amendment, Lawrence Rosenthal

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Richard Ortega, Plaintiff-Appellant, V. United States Immigration And Customs Enforcement, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants: Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Patricia E. Roberts, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Thomas W. Ports Jr.

Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic

No abstract provided.

Oliver Lawal, Daosamid Bounthisane, And Gazali Shittu, Appellants, V. Marc Mcdonald, William Riley, And Frederick Chose, Appellees: Petition For Panel Rehearing, Patricia E. Roberts, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Tara A. Brennan, Thomas W. Ports Jr.

Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic

No abstract provided.

Deadly Drones, Due Process, And The Fourth Amendment, William Funk

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Administrative Searches, Technology And Personal Privacy, Russell L. Weaver

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Seizing A Cell Phone Incident To Arrest: Data Extraction Devices, Faraday Bags, Or Aluminum Foil As A Solution To The Warrantless Cell Phone Search Problem, Adam M. Gershowitz

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Oliver Lawal, Daosamid Bounthisane, And Gazali Shittu, Appellants, V. Marc Mcdonald, William Riley, And Frederick Chose, Appellees: Reply Brief Of Appellants, Patricia E. Roberts, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Tara A. Brennan, Thomas W. Ports Jr.

Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic

No abstract provided.

Oliver Lawal, Daosamid Bounthisane, And Gazali Shittu, Appellants, V. Marc Mcdonald, William Riley, And Frederick Chose, Appellees: Brief Of Appellants, Patricia E. Roberts, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Tara A. Brennan, Thomas W. Ports Jr.

Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic

No abstract provided.

Richard Ortega, Plaintiff-Appellant, V. United States Immigration And Customs Enforcement, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants: Reply Brief Of Appellant, Patricia E. Roberts, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Alison R.W. Toepp

Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic

No abstract provided.

Culpability, Deterrence, And The Exclusionary Rule, Kit Kinports

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article discusses the Supreme Court’s use of the concepts of culpability and deterrence in its Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, in particular, in the opinions applying the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The contemporary Court sees deterrence as the exclusionary rule’s sole function, and the Article begins by taking the Court at its word, evaluating its exclusionary rule case law on its own terms. Drawing on three different theories of deterrence—economic rational choice theory, organizational theory, and the expressive account of punishment—the Article analyzes the mechanics by which the exclusionary rule deters unconstitutional searches and questions the Court’s recent decision …

Richard Ortega, Plaintiff-Appellant, V. United States Immigration And Customs Enforcement, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants: Brief Of Appellant, Patricia E. Roberts, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Alison R.W. Toepp

Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic

No abstract provided.

Mary D. Branch, Plaintiff-Appellant, V. Officer Timothy Gorman, Et Al., Defandants-Appellants: Reply Brief Of Appellant, Patricia E. Roberts, Pamela Palmer, Alexa Roggenkamp, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Robert M. Luck Iii

Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic

No abstract provided.

Mary D. Branch, Plaintiff-Appellant, V. Officer Timothy Gorman, Et Al., Defandants-Appellants: Brief Of Appellant, Patricia E. Roberts, Pamela Palmer, Alexa Roggenkamp, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Robert M. Luck Iii

Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic

No abstract provided.

The Real Rules Of "Search" Interpretations, Luke M. Milligan

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Supreme Court tells us that a Fourth Amendment “search” is a matter of “reasonable expectations of privacy.” Scholars meanwhile debate “search” on the axes of value, doctrine, institutionalism, interpretation, and judicial politics. Yet neither prevailing judicial doctrine nor normative academic discourse has had much impact on the Court’s actual “search” interpretations. This article suggests that this static between “paper” rules and “real” rules (and, more generally, normative prescriptions and judicial decisionmaking) is a function of a deep constraint on the judiciary’s capacity to form “search” doctrine in free accordance with evolving juridical and policy norms. This constraint is one …

Texting While Driving Meets The Fourth Amendment: Deterring Both Texting And Warrantless Cell Phone Searches, Adam M. Gershowitz

Faculty Publications

Recent laws criminalizing texting while driving are under-inclusive, ambiguous, and impose light punishments that are unlikely to deter. At the same time, the laws empower police to conduct warrantless searches of drivers’ cell phones. Texting while driving is dangerous and should be punished with stiff fines, possible jail time, license suspensions, and interlock devices that prevent use of phones while driving. However, more severe punishment will not eliminate police authority to conduct warrantless cell phone searches. This Article therefore proposes that legislatures allow drivers to immediately confess to texting while driving in exchange for avoiding a search of their phones. …

Crime-Severity Distinctions And The Fourth Amendment: Reassessing Reasonableness In A Changing World, Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

A growing body of commentary calls for the Supreme Court to recalibrate its Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in response to technological and social changes that threaten the traditional balance between public safety and personal liberty. This Article joins the discussion, highlighting a largely overlooked consideration that should be included in any modernization of Fourth Amendment doctrine—crime severity.

The Supreme Court emphasizes that “reasonableness” is the “touchstone” of Fourth Amendment analysis. Yet, in evaluating contested searches and seizures, current Fourth Amendment doctrine ignores a key determinant of reasonableness, the crime under investigation. As a result, an invasive search of a suspected murderer …

Section 1: Moot Court: United States V. Jones, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

The Death Of Suspicion, Fabio Arcila Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

At the nation’s founding, search warrants and the concept of suspicion were well entrenched as a means of limiting governmental search power. This tradition largely explains why today’s Fourth Amendment law includes two foundational black letter rules: the presumptive warrant requirement and the presumptive suspicion requirement. Unfortunately, neither of these rules is correct. Certainly they have historical support, especially in the common law. But whether they reflect the totality of our historic experience is questionable, especially when civil search practices are considered. More importantly, modern developments—such as urban life and technological advancements, the rise of the regulatory state, and post-9/11 …

Georgia V. Randolph, The Red-Headed Stepchild Of An Ugly Family: Why Third Party Consent Search Doctrine Is An Unfortunate Fourth Amendment Development That Should Be Restrained, Aubrey H. Brown

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Content/Envelope Distinction In Internet Law, Matthew J. Tokson

William & Mary Law Review

Whether a component of an Internet communication is classified as "content" or "envelope" information determines in large part the privacy protection it receives under constitutional and statutory law. Courts and Internet law scholars have yet to offer a means of determining the content/envelope status of unique aspects of Internet communications-from email subject lines to website URLs. As a result, data with the potential to expose every website, every Internet file downloaded, and every email sent by an Internet user may be unprotected under current law.

This Article develops a legal framework for distinguishing content from envelope information in unique areas …

The Iphone Meets The Fourth Amendment, Adam M. Gershowitz

Faculty Publications

Under the search incident to arrest doctrine, police may search the entire body and immediate grabbing space of an arrestee, including the contents of all containers, without any probable cause. Because almost all traffic infractions are arrestable offenses, police have enormous opportunity to conduct such searches incident to arrest. In the near future, these already high-stakes searches will become even more important because millions of drivers will not only possess containers that hold a few scattered papers, such as wallets or briefcases, but also iPhones—capable of holding tens of thousands of pages of personal information. If current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence …

Sense-Enhanced Searches And The Irrelevance Of The Fourth Amendment, David E. Steinberg

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Constitutional Infirmity Of Warrantless Nsa Surveillance: The Abuse Of Presidential Power And The Injury To The Fourth Amendment, Robert Bloom, William J. Dunn

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In the past year, there have been many revelations about the tactics used by the Bush administration to prosecute its war on terrorism. These stories involve the exploitation of technologies that allow the government, with the cooperation of phone companies and financial institutions, to access phone and financial records. This Article focuses on the revelation and widespread criticism of the Bush administration's operation of a warrantless electronic surveillance program to monitor international phone calls and e-mails that originate or terminate with a United States party. The powerful and secret National Security Agency heads the program and leverages its significant intelligence …

Turning A Government Search Into A Permanent Power: Thornton V. United States And The "Progressive Distortion" Of Search Incident To Arrest, George M. Dery Iii, Michael J. Hernandez

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.