Fourth Amendment Commons^™

Supreme Court, New York County, Kellogg V. Travis, Donna A. Napolitano

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, Kings County, People V. Ortiz, Robert Kronenberg

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, Kings County, People V. Butler, Robert B. Kronenberg

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals, People V. Robinson, Jonathan Janofsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Terry And Beyond: Testing The Underlying Assumption Of Reasonable Suspicion, Illya D. Lichtenberg, Alisa Smith, Michael Copeland

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States District Court, Southern District Of New York, People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals V. Giuliani, Melissa Murphy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Much Ado About Some Things: Fourth Amendment Rulings Dominate The Supreme Court’S Criminal Law Decisions In The 2000 Term, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Birchfield V. North Dakota:Why The United States Supreme Court Should Rely On Riley V. California To Hold That Criminalizing A Suspect’S Refusal To Consent To A Warrantless Blood Test Violates The Fourth Amendment, Adam Lamparello, Cynthia Swann

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Search And Seizures As Applied To Changing Digital Technologies: A Look At Pole Camera Surveillance, Tiffany M. Russo

Seton Hall Circuit Review

No abstract provided.

Newsroom: A True Original(Ist) 02-15-2016, Michael M. Bowden

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

The Hidden Under Caste Of America: An Examination Of The Effects Of Terry V. Ohio, Florida V. Bostick, & Whren V. United States And Colorblindness On African Americans, Austin Schoeck

Political Science: Student Scholarship & Creative Works

No abstract provided.

Dna And Distrust, Kerry Abrams, Brandon L. Garrett

Notre Dame Law Review

Over the past three decades, government regulation and funding of DNA testing has reshaped the use of genetic evidence across various fields, including criminal law, family law, and employment law. Courts have struggled with questions of when and whether to treat genetic evidence as implicating individual rights, policy trade-offs, or federalism problems. We identify two modes of genetic testing: identification testing, used to establish a person’s identity, and predictive testing, which seeks to predict outcomes for a person. Judges and lawmakers have often drawn a bright line at predictive testing, while allowing uninhibited identification testing. The U.S. Supreme Court in …

Duty Of Candor In The Digital Age: The Need For Heightened Judicial Supervision Of Stingray Searches, Andrew Hemmer

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This Note explores the constitutional implications of the use of a device known as the “Stingray” in criminal investigations. This device masquerades as a cell phone tower and forces all cell phones within a considerable range to connect to it, transmitting data and allowing law enforcement to ascertain the location of each cell phone. The use of Stingrays raises important Fourth Amendment concerns that have been brought to light most significantly by the 2008 federal prosecution of Daniel Rigmaiden. This Note argues that Stingray use constitutes a Fourth Amendment search and that a new standard of warrant requirements is needed …

Riley V. California And The Stickiness Principle, Steven I. Friedland

Duke Law & Technology Review

In Fourth Amendment decisions, different concepts, facts and assumptions about reality are often tethered together by vocabulary and fact, creating a ‘Stickiness Principle.’ In particular, form and function historically were considered indistinguishable, not as separate factors. For example, “containers” carried things, “watches” told time, and “phones” were used to make voice calls. Advancing technology, though, began to fracture this identity and the broader Stickiness Principle. In June 2014, Riley v. California and its companion case, United States v. Wurie, offered the Supreme Court an opportunity to begin untethering form and function and dismantling the Stickiness Principle. Riley presented the question …

Recent Development: Varriale V. State: The State May Store And Use A Voluntarily Provided Dna Sample And Resultant Profile For Any Future Criminal Investigations, Unless The Suspect Provides An Express Limitation, C. Harris Schlecker

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that when a suspect does not expressly limit consent to DNA testing, the Fourth Amendment does not prevent the State from storing and using his voluntarily provided DNA in later, unrelated criminal investigations.

Rfid Implementation: Testing In Prisons And Parolees For The Greater Good, 33 J. Marshall J. Info. Tech. & Privacy L. 22 (2016), Mirko Akrap

UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law

No abstract provided.

What's In The Box? Re-Conceptualizing Computers As Containers, Metadata As Contents Of That Container, And Applying Fourth Amendment Protections, Christopher Michels

Criminal Law Practitioner

No abstract provided.

Civil Arrest? (Another) St. Louis Case Study In Unconstitutionality, Mae Quinn, Eirik Cheverud

Journal Articles

This Article advances a simple claim in need of enforcement in this country right now: no person may be arrested for an alleged violation of civil, as opposed to criminal, law. Indeed, courts have long interpreted the Fourth Amendment as prohibiting arrest except when probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed and that the defendant is the person who committed the crime. However, in many places police take citizens into custody without a warrant for the non-criminal conduct of allegedly breaking civil laws. This unfortunate phenomenon received national attention in St. Louis, Missouri following the death …

The Internet Of Things And The Fourth Amendment Of Effects, Andrew Ferguson

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

By 2020 there will be billions of “things” connected through the “Internet of Things.” These smart devices built within our homes, cars, smartphones, clothing, and accessories present new possibilities for technological surveillance for law enforcement. This network of smart devices also poses a new challenge for a Fourth Amendment built around “effects.” The constitutional language protecting “persons, houses, papers, and effects” from unreasonable searches and seizures must confront this change. This article addresses how a Fourth Amendment built on old-fashioned “effects” can address a new world when things are no longer just inactive, static objects, but objects that create and …

Policing In The Era Of Permissiveness: Mitigating Misconduct Through Third-Party Standing, Julian A. Cook Iii

Brooklyn Law Review

On April 4, 2015, Walter L. Scott was driving his vehicle when he was stopped by Officer Michael T. Slager of the North Charleston, South Carolina, police department for a broken taillight. A dash cam video from the officer’s vehicle showed the two men engaged in what appeared to be a rather routine verbal exchange. Sometime after Slager returned to his vehicle, Scott exited his car and ran away from Slager, prompting the officer to pursue him on foot. After he caught up with Scott in a grassy field near a muffler establishment, a scuffle between the men ensued, purportedly …

Never Alone: Why The Inevitable Influx Of Drones Necessitates A New Fourth Amendment Standard That Adequately Protects Reasonable Expectations Of Privacy, Paul Burgin

University of Baltimore Law Review

In June 2011, North Dakota cattle rancher Rodney Brossart became the first American to be arrested with the aid of a drone (Unmanned Aircraft System(s) or UAS) operated by law enforcement. Six cows found their way onto Brossart's property, and he refused to turn them over to law enforcement officials. Brossart and a few family members chased police officers off of his property at gunpoint, and police later returned with a warrant and SWAT team. A sixteen-hour standoff ensued until police called in the assistance of a UAS to pinpoint Brossart's exact location. Shortly thereafter, SWAT officers rushed in, tased, …

To Catch A Terrorist: The Improper Use Of Profiling In U.S. Post-9/11 Counterterrorism, Kamillia Crawford

Honors Undergraduate Theses

The attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11) caused thousands of deaths, national and global panic, and immediate action by the federal government to protect the borders of the United States of America (USA) from terrorism. In response to these attacks, the United States (U.S.) government enacted laws for law enforcement agencies to protect against terrorist activities. Law enforcement agencies are effective in combating terrorism, but their measures contain a major flaw - the improper use of race in profiling to address national security and public safety concerns. Racial profiling is an ineffective measure for preventing terrorism. There are solutions to …

Fourth Amendment Implications Of Police-Worn Body Cameras, Erik Nielsen

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

Gags As Guidance: Expanding Notice Of National Security Letter Investigations To Targets And The Public, Rebecca Wexler

Faculty Scholarship

National Security Letters (NSLs) are administrative subpoenas that the FBI uses to demand information from Internet service providers without prior judicial approval. They almost always include nondisclosure orders, commonly called “gags,” which prohibit the recipient from discussing the letter’s contents or even its mere existence. Courts and commentators have expressed concern that these gags may be overbroad prior restraints that violate the First Amendment and shroud government surveillance in undue secrecy. On November 30, 2015, an NSL gag order was lifted in full for the first time after a federal district judge found no “good reason” to retain it.

This …

Arbitrary Law Enforcement Is Unreasonable: Whren's Failure To Hold Police Accountable For Traffic Enforcement Policies, Jonathan Witmer-Rich

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Whren v. United States is surely a leading contender for the most controversial and heavily criticized Supreme Court case that was decided in a short, unanimous opinion. The slip opinion is only thirteen pages long, and provoked no dissents or even concurring opinions. Critical reaction has been overwhelmingly negative. Criticism not withstanding, the Court has not retreated from Whren, but continues to repeat its core holding.

Part I frames the problem in Whren with a story. Part II sets forth the fundamental Fourth Amendment principle underlying this article—the prohibition against arbitrary search and seizure. Part III explains how arbitrariness …

Anthony Amsterdam's Perspectives On The Fourth Amendment, And What It Teaches About The Good And Bad In Rodriguez V. United States, Tracey Maclin

UF Law Faculty Publications

Anthony Amsterdam’s article, Perspectives On The Fourth Amendment is one of the best, if not the best, law review article written on the Fourth Amendment. Thus, Minnesota Law Review on its hundredth anniversary fittingly recognizes and honors Professor Amsterdam’s article in its Symposium edition, “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Celebrating 100 Volumes of the Minnesota Law Review.” I am flattered that the Law Review invited me to participate in this Symposium. Specifically, my article connects two perspectives from Amsterdam’s article — the Fourth Amendment’s concern with discretionary police power and the Framers’ vision of the Fourth Amendment to bar …

For The Protection Of Society's Most Vulnerable, The Ada Should Apply To Arrests, Thomas J. Auner

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ignorance Of The Law Is No Excuse—Unless You’Re A Cop, Hannah Dunn

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Post Quon: An Analysis Of The Evolution Of New Media And The Employment Relationship, John H. Shannon, Susan A. O’Sullivan-Gavin

Journal of Business & Technology Law

No abstract provided.

Evidence Laundering In A Post-Herring World, Kay L. Levine, Jenia I. Turner, Ronald F. Wright

Faculty Articles

The Supreme Court’s decision in Herring v. United States authorizes police to defeat the Fourth Amendment’s protections through a process we call evidence laundering. Evidence laundering occurs when one police officer makes a constitutional mistake when gathering evidence and then passes that evidence along to a second officer, who develops it further and then delivers it to prosecutors for use in a criminal case. The original constitutional taint disappears in the wash.

Courts have allowed evidence laundering in a variety of contexts, from cases involving flawed databases to cases stemming from faulty judgments and communication lapses in law enforcement teams. …