Fourth Amendment Commons^™

The Court Loses Its Way With The Global Positioning System: United States V. Jones Retreats To The “Classic Trespassory Search”, George M. Dery Iii, Ryan Evaro

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

This Article analyzes United States v. Jones, in which the Supreme Court considered whether government placement of a global positioning system (GPS) device on a vehicle to follow a person’s movements constituted a Fourth Amendment “search.” The Jones Court ruled that two distinct definitions existed for a Fourth Amendment “search.” In addition to Katz v. United States’s reasonable-expectation-of-privacy standard, which the Court had used exclusively for over four decades, the Court recognized a second kind of search that it called a “classic trespassory search.” The second kind of search occurs when officials physically trespass or intrude upon a constitutionally protected …

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.

The Right To Quantitative Privacy, David Gray, Danielle K. Citron

Faculty Scholarship

We are at the cusp of a historic shift in our conceptions of the Fourth Amendment driven by dramatic advances in surveillance technology. Governments and their private sector agents continue to invest billions of dollars in massive data-mining projects, advanced analytics, fusion centers, and aerial drones, all without serious consideration of the constitutional issues that these technologies raise. In United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court signaled an end to its silent acquiescence in this expanding surveillance state. In that case, five justices signed concurring opinions defending a revolutionary proposition: that citizens have Fourth Amendment interests in substantial quantities of …

When School Is Not In Session: How Student Drug Testing Can Transform Parenting, Amanda R. Lamberson

Touro Law Review

This comment focuses on a growing trend in today's schools: requiring drug tests. A focus is given both to the judiciary's role in this matter and the Legislature's passage of New York Education Law section 912-a, 10 which regulates student drug testing and urine analysis.

The Fourth Amendment's National Security Exception: Its History And Limits, L. Rush Atkinson

Vanderbilt Law Review

Since 2001, federal prosecutors have indicted and convicted hundreds of defendants for terrorism, espionage, and other national security crimes.' And for every prosecution, there are dozens of investigations into foreign threats that never result in a trial. Between 2001 and 2010, for example, the federal government obtained 16,306 foreign intelligence warrants in the course of its security operations. Between 2004 and 2011, the Federal Bureau of Investigations ("FBI") issued 119,192 National Security Letters for records deemed to be pertinent to national security investigations.

Despite these numbers, security investigations and prosecutions proceed on uncertain constitutional footing. The rights of terrorism suspects …

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.

Sniff Dogs In Schools: Do The Noses Know?, Charles J. Russo

Educational Leadership Faculty Publications

As drugs and other contraband made their way into schools starting in the 1960s, education leaders turned to drug-sniffing dogs, which typically work in conjunction with law enforcement officials, to detect the presence of contraband in learning environments. In fact, sniff dogs—or their noses—are a highly effective, reliable, and unobtrusive means of discovering potentially dangerous contraband, such as drugs, alcohol, and even gunpowder from firearms. Accordingly, the vast majority of courts have upheld the use of sniff dogs in schools when challenged under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The use of drug-sniffing dogs has come to …

Stop Hammering Fourth Amendment Rights: Reshaping The Community Caretaking Exception With The Physical Intrusion Standard, Gregory T. Helding

Marquette Law Review

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. As its name suggests, the exception acknowledges that police officers act not merely as law enforcers, but also as community caretakers, rendering aid to those in need, and acting to protect both people and property from harm. As originally conceived, the community caretaking exception was limited to situations involving automobiles where police were performing functions totally divorced from law enforcement. Over the years, courts have expanded the exception considerably. Police officers who suspect a crime has taken place may …

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.

It’S Raining Katz And Jones: The Implications Of United States V. Jones–A Case Of Sound And Fury, Jace C. Gatewood

Pace Law Review

This Article discusses the implications of Jones in light of emerging technology capable of duplicating the monitoring undertaken in Jones with the same degree of intrusiveness attributable to GPS tracking devices, but without depending on any physical invasion of property. This Article also discusses how the pervasive use of this emerging technology may reshape reasonable expectations of privacy concerning an individual’s public movements, making it all the more difficult to apply the Fourth Amendment constitutional tests outlined in Jones. In this regard, this Article explores recent trends in electronic tracking, surveillance, and other investigative methods that have raised privacy concerns, …

Survey Of Washington Search And Seizure Law: 2013 Update, Justice Charles W. Johnson, Justice Debra L. Stephens

Seattle University Law Review

This survey is intended to serve as a resource to which Washington lawyers, judges, law enforcement officers, and others can turn as an authoritative starting point for researching Washington search and seizure law. In order to be useful as a research tool, this Survey requires periodic updates to address new cases interpreting the Washington constitution and the U.S. Constitution and to reflect the current state of the law. Many of these cases involve the Washington State Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Washington constitution. Also, as the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to examine Fourth Amendment search and seizure jurisprudence, its …

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.

Striking A Balance: The Speech Or Debate Clause’S Testimonial Privilege And Policing Government Corruption, Jay Rothrock

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Over Your Head, Under The Radar: An Examination Of Changing Legislation, Aging Case Law, And Possible Solutions To The Domestic Police Drone Puzzle , J. Tyler Black

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

“Lonesome Road”: Driving Without The Fourth Amendment, Lewis R. Katz

Seattle University Law Review

The protections of the Fourth Amendment on the streets and highways of America have been drastically curtailed. This Article traces the debasement of Fourth Amendment protections on the road and how the Fourth Amendment’s core value of preventing arbitrary police behavior has been marginalized. This Article contends that the existence of a traffic offense should not be the end of the inquiry but the first step, and that defendants should be able to challenge the reasonableness even when there is proof of a traffic offense.

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.

Life On Streets And Trails: Fourth Amendment Rights For The Homeless And The Homeward Bound, Wesley C. Jackson

Vanderbilt Law Review

People who read law review articles usually have the resources to temporarily abscond from society on a whim, perhaps to the nearest trailhead, and begin a trek through the woods. Such readers, if they choose a well-maintained trail frequented by long-distance hikers, may come across a simple, three-sided cabin known as a shelter. There they might find a grimy and unwashed bunch, talking amongst themselves using jargon such as "blazes" and "trail angels." Some may recognize them as "thru-hikers" and wonder how long the scrawny, bearded, and overloaded travelers have been at it. But some may ask if these apparent …

The Exclusionary Rule: Is It On Its Way Out? Should It Be?, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This symposium, comprising six articles in addition to this one, was triggered by a spate of Supreme Court opinions occurring over the last seven years, all of which raise the two questions in the title to this article (which is also the title of the symposium). Since 1974, when United States v. Calandra definitively established deterrence as the primary objective of the suppression remedy, the Court has nibbled away at the exclusionary rule from a number of different directions. But the Court's decisions in Hudson v. Michigan (2006), Herring v. United States (2009), and Davis v. United States (2011) reveal …

Privacy And Consent Over Time: The Role Of Agreement In Fourth Amendment Analysis, Christine Jolls

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Shattered Looking Glass: The Pitfalls And Potential Of The Mosaic Theory Of Fourth Amendment Privacy, David Gray, Danielle K. Citron

Faculty Scholarship

On January 23, 2012, the Supreme Court issued a landmark non-decision in United States v. Jones. In that case, officers used a GPS-enabled device to track a suspect’s public movements for four weeks, amassing a considerable amount of data in the process. Although ultimately resolved on narrow grounds, five Justices joined concurring opinions in Jones expressing sympathy for some version of the “mosaic theory” of Fourth Amendment privacy. This theory holds that we maintain reasonable expectations of privacy in certain quantities of information even if we do not have such expectations in the constituent parts. This Article examines and explores …

Searches Incident To Arrest And The Aftermath Of Arizona V. Gant – A Circuit Split As To Gant’S Applicability To Non-Vehicular Searches, Nicholas De Sena

Pace Law Review

The nation’s struggle to balance individual rights of privacy and legitimate law enforcement efforts continues without any clear resolution in sight. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees citizens the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, stating that search warrants shall be issued only with a showing of probable cause, a description of the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Complementing the warrant requirement is the principal that searches done without a warrant are per se unreasonable. The Supreme Court, however, has recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement under …

California And Uncle Sam's Tug-Of-War Over Mary Jane Is Really Harshing The Mellow, Daniel Mortensen

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

There But For The Grace Of God Go I: The Right Of Cross-Examination In Social Security Disability Hearings , Bradley S. Dixon

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Proposition 8 Is Unconstitutional, But Not Because The Ninth Circuit Said So: The Equal Protection Clause Does Not Support A Legal Distinction Between Denying The Right To Same-Sex Marriage And Not Providing It In The First Place, Nathan Rouse

Seattle University Law Review

In Perry v. Brown, the Ninth Circuit held that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. But in doing so, the court stepped back from the breadth of the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit did not address whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental constitutional right. Nor did the Ninth Circuit address whether the Equal Protection Clause categorically prevents states from limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Instead, the Ninth Circuit reached the narrow conclusion that Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it withdrew a preexisting legal right from a marginalized group without any legitimate purpose. The Ninth Circuit should have held …

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 …

You’Re Under Arrest—Say Ah: Suggestions For Legislatures Drafting Statutes Allowing Dna Extraction From Arrestees, Alex Sugzda

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Crime, Survelliance, And Communities, I. Bennett Capers

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Looking For Trouble: An Exploration Of How To Regulate Digital Searches, Eric Yeager

Vanderbilt Law Review

Imagine that the cybercrime division of a local police force receives a report of fraudulent credit card purchases, and after linking subpoenaed credit card records to a particular shipping address, officers obtain a warrant to search the computer of the resident for evidence of identity theft and fraud. During a preliminary search of the suspect's hard drive, the investigators discover a folder marked "preteen porno pix" filled entirely with picture and video files. Knowing that the evidence they are looking for is almost certainly contained within a text file, they have little reason to believe that opening this folder will …

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.

Amending For Justice’S Sake: Codified Disclosure Rule Needed To Provide Guidance To Prosecutor’S Duty To Disclose, Nathan A. Frazier

Florida Law Review

This Note argues for the implementation of bright-line rules to guide prosecutorial discretion. It urges a solution that identifies the salient facts from the case law and enumerates those facts into a codified Strickler three-prong standard. A bright-line standard should exist requiring disclosure when any of the following scenarios are present: (1) Prior perjury or false testimony of a government witness; (2) Promises of immunity to a government witness; (3) Monetary rewards to key government witnesses; (4) Mental impairments of a government witness; (5) Information reflecting bias or prejudice of a government witness against defendant; (6) Confessions to the crime …