Privacy Law Commons^™

Nothing New Under The Sun? A Technologically Rational Doctrine Of Fourth Amendment Search, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Yet as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, the Amendment places no restriction on police combing through financial records; telephone, e-mail and website transactional records; or garbage left for collection. Indeed there is no protection for any information knowingly provided to a third party, because the provider is said to retain no reasonable expectation of privacy in that information. As technology dictates that more and more of our personal lives are available to anyone equipped to receive them, and as social norms dictate that more and …

Technology, Privacy, And The Courts: A Reply To Colb And Swire, Orin S. Kerr

Michigan Law Review

I thank Sherry Colb and Peter Swire for devoting their time and considerable talents to responding to my article, The Fourth Amendment and New Technologies: Constitutional Myths and the Case for Caution. I will conclude with a few comments.

The Fourth Amendment And New Technologies: Constitutional Myths And The Case For Caution, Orin S. Kerr

Michigan Law Review

To one who values federalism, federal preemption of state law may significantly threaten the autonomy and core regulatory authority of The Supreme Court recently considered whether a1mmg an infrared thermal imaging device at a suspect's home can violate the Fourth Amendment. Kyllo v. United States announced a new and comprehensive rule: the government's warrantless use of senseenhancing technology that is "not in general use" violates the Fourth Amendment when it yields "details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion." Justice Scalia's majority opinion acknowledged that the Court's rule was not needed to resolve the case …

Katz Is Dead. Long Live Katz, Peter P. Swire

Michigan Law Review

Katz v. United States is the king of Supreme Court surveillance cases. Written in 1967, it struck down the earlier regime of property rules, declaring that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places." The concurrence by Justice Harlan announced the new regime - court-issued warrants are required where there is an infringement on a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy." Together with the companion case Berger v. New York, Katz has stood for a grand conception of the Fourth Amendment as a bulwark against wiretaps and other emerging forms of surveillance. Professor Orin Kerr, in his excellent article, shows that …

A World Without Privacy: Why Property Does Not Define The Limits Of The Right Against Unreasonable Searches And Seizures, Sherry F. Colb

Michigan Law Review

Imagine for a moment that it is the year 2020. An American company has developed a mind-reading device, called the "brain wave recorder" ("BWR"). The BWR is a highly sensitive instrument that detects electrical impulses from any brain within ten feet of the machine. Though previously thought impossible, the BWR can discern the following information about the target individual: (1) whether he or she is happy, sad, anxious, depressed, or irritable; (2) whether he or she is even slightly sexually aroused; (3) whether he or she is taking any medication (and if so, what the medication is); (4) if a …

Beyond Privacy, Beyond Probable Cause, Beyond The Fourth Amendment: New Strategies For Fighting Pretext Arrests, 69 U. Colo. L. Rev. 693 (1998), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Feeling Violated: Seventh Circuit Puts The Squeeze On Fourth Amendment Rights Of Bus Travelers, 31 J. Marshall L. Rev. 245 (1997), Andrew J. Purcell

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Privacy's Problem And The Law Of Criminal Procedure, William J. Stuntz

Michigan Law Review

Part I of this article addresses the connection between privacy-based limits on police authority and substantive limits on government power as a general matter. Part II briefly addresses the effects of that connection on Fourth and Fifth Amendment law, both past and present. Part ID suggests that privacy protection has a deeper problem: it tends to obscure more serious harms that attend police misconduct, harms that flow not from information disclosure but from the police use of force. The upshot is that criminal procedure would be better off with less attention to privacy, at least as privacy is defined in …

Response: The Problems With Privacy's Problem, Louis Michael Seidman

Michigan Law Review

A Response to William J. Stuntz's "Privacy's Problem and the Law of Criminal Procedure"

Reply, William J. Stuntz

Michigan Law Review

A Reply to Louis Michael Seidman's Response

The Consent Exception To The Warrant Requirement, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Posture Of Canine Sniffs, Lina Shahin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mandatory Hiv Testing Of Rape Defendants: Constitutional Rights Are Sacrificed In A Vain Attempt To Assist The Victim, Raymond S. Franks

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Diminishing Expectations Of Privacy In The Rehnquist Court, 22 J. Marshall L. Rev. 825 (1989), Laurence A. Benner

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Arizona V. Hicks: Probable Cause Requirement Under The Plain View Doctrine, 21 J. Marshall L. Rev. 903 (1988), Robert J. Kuker

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Griffin V. Wisconsin Warrantless Probation Searches - Do The State's Needs Warrant Such Strict Measures, 21 J. Marshall L. Rev. 921 (1988), William Blake Weiler

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Encouragement And The Fourth Amendment, 20 J. Marshall L. Rev. 661 (1987), Barry D. Green

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Book Review Of Passion: An Essay On Personality , Richard F. Devlin Frsc

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Passion is a cogently structured, compel Jingly argued and seductively enthralling masterpiece which, in years to come, will undoubtedly stand out as an inspirational source for many who seek social transformation. Unger's style, in this essay at least, is lucid and inviting. Substantively, Passion demonstrates not only the depth of his penetrating intellect but also his command of an array of' disciplines. Unger's polymathy is all the more impressive when we remember that ours is an era in which idiosyncratic specialization is the norm.

Informers Revisited: Government Surveillance Of Domestic Political Organizations And The Fourth And First Amendments, Dolores A. Donovan

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Business Papers Rule: Personal Privacy And White Collar Crime, John S. Applegate

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Discovery And The Privacy Act: Exemption (B)(11) To The Conditions Of Disclosure: What Qualifies As An "Order Of The Court"?, John W. Williams

University of Richmond Law Review

On December 31, 1974, President Gerald Ford signed the landmark Privacy Act of 1974 into law. One of the key concepts of the Act is the principle of disclosure limitation, which limits the ability of the federal government to disclose the contents of per- sonal records in its possession. In the words of the Senate Governmental Operations Committee, this principle "is designed to pre- vent.., the wrongful disclosure and use of personal files held by Federal agencies."

Visual Rape: A Look At The Dubious Legality Of Strip Searches, 13 J. Marshall L. Rev. 273 (1980), Paul R. Shuldiner

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reconsideration Of The Katz Expectation Of Privacy Test, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note, by modifying certain aspects of the reasonable expectation of privacy test, offers a theory that attempts to identify the minimum content of the fourth amendment. In the first section, the Note examines the reasonable expectation of privacy test and considers whether it has been or can be applied in a manner that fails to protect the right to have certain minimum expectations of privacy. It analyzes both the "actual" and the "reasonable" expectation requirements, identifies weaknesses inherent in the current application of these requirements, and suggests certain ways in which they might be refined. In the second section, …

The Life And Times Of Boyd V. United States (1886-1976), Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

In Boyd v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the fourth and fifth amendments create a zone of privacy encompassing an individual's person and property. The government, according to Boyd, cannot enter this zone, either by compelling an individual to testify against himself or by subpoenaing or seizing his books and papers for use as evidence against him in a criminal or quasi-criminal proceeding. The Court found an "intimate relation" between the two amendments such that the search and seizure of books and papers may be "unreasonable" even if conducted pursuant to a court order.

Over time, …

Domestic Intelligence Informants, The First Amendment And The Need For Prior Judicial Review, Martin L. Perschetz

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Westin: Privacy And Freedom, Stanley K. Laughlin Jr.

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Privacy and Freedom by Alan F. Westin