Fourth Amendment Commons^™

Bright Line Breaking Point: Embracing Justice Scalia’S Call For The Supreme Court To Abandon An Unreasonable Approach To Fourth Amendment Search And Seizure Law, Edwin Butterfoss

Faculty Scholarship

In Thornton v. United States, the United States Supreme Court applied the bright-line rule of New York v. Belton to uphold the search of containers in the passenger compartment of a car when the arresting officer made initial contact with the suspect alter the suspect had parked his car and started walking away. Justice Scalia concurred in the judgment but criticized the majority for relying on the bright-line rule of Belton to uphold the search, stating that the Court’s effort to apply the Belton rule stretched that doctrine "beyond its breaking point."

Justice Scalia found the search in Thornton lawful …

There's No Place Like Home - Except When You Are Under Arrest: The Third Circuit's Analysis Of Home Arrests In United States V. Veal, Kristin S. Mckeon

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Disappearing Safeguards: Fisa Nonresident Alien "Loophole" Is Unconstitutional, Brenton Hund

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The note argues that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) contains a "nonresident alien loophole" that undermines constitutional protections, particularly for U.S. persons. This loophole, expanded by amendments such as the Patriot Act and the Lone Wolf Amendment, allows the government to conduct surveillance on nonresident aliens under relaxed standards, which can incidentally target U.S. citizens without meeting FISA's stricter requirements. The analysis contends that this loophole violates the Fourth Amendment by enabling surveillance on U.S. persons without probable cause or proper warrants, eroding privacy rights in the name of national security. The note advocates for legislative reforms to close …

The Physics Of Fourth Amendment Privacy Rights, Omar Saleem

Journal Publications

Einstein's esteem for theoretical physics and Dostoyevsky serve as a conduit for this article's discussion about the similarities between the evolution of theoretical physics and the criminal process related to Fourth Amendment privacy rights. Part I of this Article demonstrates that law and science share traits of rationality, a quest for universality, and theoretical evolution. Part II traces the parallel paths of Fourth Amendment privacy rights and theoretical physics. Part III illustrates the radical alterations in theoretical physics created by Einstein's relativity discoveries and the radical alterations in Fourth Amendment privacy rights created by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in …

United States V. Scott: Should A Pre-Trial Releasee Be Subject To Fourth Amendment Searches And Seizures Based On Probable Cause Or Reasonable Suspicion?, Gina M. Muccio

Pace Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rethinking The Substantive Due Process Right To Privacy: Grounding Privacy In The Fourth Amendment, Mary H. Wimberly

Vanderbilt Law Review

Little in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has spurred as much controversy as the Court's recognition of a constitutional right to privacy. While implicitly acknowledging that such a right is not listed in the text of the Constitution, in Griswold v. Connecticut the Court found that the right existed in the "penumbras" of the amendments to the Constitution.' According to the Court, the right to privacy was present in "emanations" from the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. This reasoning was notoriously extended to abortion in Roe v. Wade. In order to invalidate state regulation of abortion, the Roe …

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 …

Georgia V. Randolph: Whose Castle Is It, Anyway?, Lesley Mccall

University of Richmond Law Review

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, a warrant is required to conduct a lawful search of a person's home, and a warrantless search is unreasonable per se. However, there are some exceptions to this requirement. A warrantless search is reasonable if police obtain voluntary consent from a person to search their home or effects. The Supreme Court has also recognized that a third party with common authority over a household may consent to a police search affecting an absent co-occupant. The Supreme Court of the United States recently addressed whether third party consent was effective …

Home Sweet Home?! Maybe Not For Parolees And Probationers When It Comes To Fourth Amendment Protection, David M. Stout

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Fourth Amendment Status Of Stored E-Mail: The Law Professors' Brief In Warshak V. United States, Susan Freiwald, Patricia L. Bellia

Journal Articles

This paper contains the law professors' brief in the landmark case of Warshak v. United States, the first federal appellate case to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy in electronic mail stored with an Internet Service Provider (ISP). While the 6th circuit's opinion was subsequently vacated and reheard en banc, the panel decision will remain extremely significant for its requirement that law enforcement agents must generally acquire a warrant before compelling an ISP to disclose its subscriber's stored e-mails. The law professors' brief, co-authored by Susan Freiwald (University of San Francisco) and Patricia L. Bellia (Notre Dame) and signed by …

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 …

Fourth Amendment Lessons From The Highway And The Subway: A Principled Approach To Suspicionless Searches, Ricardo J. Bascuas

Articles

The threat of future terrorist attacks has sped the proliferation of random, suspicionless searches and seizures, such as those now made of New York City subway riders. Courts assess the legality of such searches with an inherently flawed balancing test developed to assess searches and seizures made without "probable cause." Although scholars and Justices alike have decried the resort to balancing individual interests against the government's need to search, no alternative framework has been proposed. This Article proposes a more principled, objective inquiry for determining when suspicionless searches can be made. To eliminate the need for balancing, this Article advances …

Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation In The October 2005 Term, Martin Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Science Fiction And Shed Dna, D. H. Kaye

NULR Online

No abstract provided.

Square Pegs, Round Hole: The Fourth Amendment And Preflight Searches Of Airline Passengers In A Post-9/11 World, Steven R. Minert

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Down To The Wire: Assessing The Constitutionality Of The National Security Agency's Warrantless Wiretapping Program: Exit The Rule Of Law, Fletcher N. Baldwin Jr., Robert B. Shaw

UF Law Faculty Publications

The article discusses the constitutionality of warrantless wiretapping surveillance by the National Security Agency (NSA) on U.S. citizens. The wiretapping program existed weeks after the September 11, 2001 attacks, on the justification that Congress authorized the president to wiretap U.S. citizens without a warrant, and that the president had inherent authority as commander-in-chief. But it is argued that Congress did not expressly authorize the president to conduct warrantless wiretapping and that he does not have such inherent authority.

We intend this Article to be a commentary on the constitutionality of the NSA wiretapping program solely as it relates to the …

Brief For Professors Of Electronic Privacy Law And Internet Law As Amici Curiae Supporting The Appellee And Urging Affirmance, Patricia L. Bellia, Susan Freiwald

Court Briefs

No. 06-4092
Steven Warshak v. United States of America

On appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati

From the Summary of Argument

Electronic mail (“e-mail’) has become an essential medium of communication and assumed a vital role in our lives. The contents of our e-mail accounts reveal extensive and detailed information about our interests, our views, and our actions. Yet, the Government in this case claims the right to obtain the entirety of our personal e-mail accounts from our service providers, without first establishing probable cause or providing us notice, so long …

Providing Material Support To Violate The Constitution: The Usa Patriot Act And Its Assault On The 4th Amendment, Christopher Metzler

North Carolina Central Law Review

No abstract provided.

Searching For The Fourth Amendment: In A Post-September 11th World, Does The Rationale Of The Fourth Circuit In United States V. Jenkins Reduce The Fourth Amendment Protections Of Individuals On Military Installations?, Ryan Leary

Campbell Law Review

This comment will begin by discussing how the Fourth Circuit's rationale in United States v. Jenkins could be interpreted as an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant and probable cause requirements on closed military installations. Next, this comment will establish the legal definition of a closed military base to determine the potential impact of any interpretation of the Fourth Circuit's decision in Jenkins. Then, this comment will analyze how Jenkins could be interpreted in both broad and narrow ways and why the narrower reading of the Jenkins opinion should be followed. This comment will then consider how other circuits have …

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 …

Reflections On Standing: Challenges To Searches And Seizures In A High Technology World, José F. Anderson

All Faculty Scholarship

Among the profound issues that surround constitutional criminal procedure is the obscure often overlooked issue of who has standing to challenge an illegal search, seizure or confession. Privacy interests are often overlooked because without a legal status that allows a person to complain in court, there is no way to challenge whether one is constitutionally protected from personal invasions. Standing is that procedural barrier often imposed to prevent a person in a case from objecting to improper police conduct because of his or her relationship of ownership, proximity, location, or interest in an item searched or a thing seized. Although …

Padgett V. Donald: Why Not So Special, Victoriya Kulik

Mercer Law Review

In Padgett v. Donald, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously held that a state statute, permitting compelled collection of saliva samples from incarcerated felons for DNA profiling, does not violate the federal Constitution's Fourth Amendment, the search and seizure provisions of the state constitution, or the felons' rights to privacy under the federal or state constitutions. The circuits are split whether to apply the special needs analysis or the balancing test to DNA profiling statutes. In this case of first impression for the circuit, the Eleventh Circuit applied the balancing test. This decision is important because it opens …

Declining To State A Name In Consideration Of The Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause And Law Enforcement Databases After Hiibel, Joseph R. Ashby

Michigan Law Review

In response to a report of an argument on a public sidewalk, a police officer approaches two people standing in the vicinity of the reported dispute. The officer requests that each person provide her name so the officer can run the names through databases to which the police department subscribes. After searching each name through various databases, the officer might discover that one of the individuals made several purchases of cold medicine containing pseudoephedrine and that the other just received a license from the State to procure certain hazardous chemicals. These two people might be in the early stages of …

The Price Of Pretrial Release: Can We Afford To Keep Our Fourth Amendment Rights?, Melanie D. Wilson

Scholarly Articles

The Fourth Amendment serves an important constitutional function. It protects the privacy of Americans from intrusions on their personal security. Few rights are held more sacred. When a person is arrested and faces the real likelihood of pretrial detention in jail, the person risks not only a reduction in his privacy rights, but also a loss of his liberty. In such circumstances, the arrested person should be able to bargain away some of his Fourth Amendment rights in exchange for the additional freedoms associated with release to home.

Undoubtedly, defendants forced to choose between incarceration and Fourth Amendment rights will …

The Reasonable Policeman: Police Intent In Criminal Procedure, Craig M. Bradley

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Hitching A Ride: Every Time You Take A Drive, The Government Is Riding With You, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1499 (2006), Benjamin Burnham

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double-Trouble: The Underregulation Of Surreptitious Video Surveillance In Conjunction With The Use Of Snitches In Domestic Government Investigations, Mona R. Shokrai

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

Technological advancements in digital imagery and visual recordings have all but vitiated any expectation of privacy in public places. Yet this Orwellian state of constant governmental surveillance has extended beyond the scope of public observation. Closely-held expectations of privacy in the most intimate locations have also become subject to government observation. The means by which the government is able to garner such detailed information concerning the minutiae of our private lives is in need of assessment.

The Usa Patriot Act And The Submajoritarian Fourth Amendment, Susan Herman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Mapp V. Ohio: The First Shot Fired In The Warren Court's Criminal Procedure 'Revolution', Yale Kamisar

Book Chapters

Although Earl Warren ascended to the Supreme Court in 1953, when we speak of the Warren Court's "revolution" in American criminal procedure we really mean the movement that got underway half-way through the Chief Justice's sixteen-year reign. It was the 1961 case of Mapp v. Ohio, overruling Wolf v. Colorado and holding that the state courts had to exclude illegally seized evidence as a matter of federal constitutional law, that is generally regarded as having launched the so-called criminal procedure revolution.