Privacy Law Commons^™

Katz V. United States: Back To The Future?, Michael Vitiello

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Body Cameras And The Path To Redeem Privacy Law, Woodrow Hartzog

Faculty Scholarship

From a privacy perspective, the movement towards police body cameras seems ominous. The prospect of a surveillance device capturing massive amounts of data concerning people’s most vulnerable moments is daunting. These concerns are compounded by the fact that there is little consensus and few hard rules on how and for whom these systems should be built and used. But in many ways, this blank slate is a gift. Law and policy makers are not burdened by the weight of rules and technologies created in a different time for a different purpose. These surveillance and data technologies will be modern. Many …

The Fourth Amendment Disclosure Doctrines, Monu Bedi

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The third party and public disclosure doctrines (together the “disclosure doctrines”) are long-standing hurdles to Fourth Amendment protection. These doctrines have become increasingly relevant to assessing the government’s use of recent technologies such as data mining, drone surveillance, and cell site location data. It is surprising then that both the Supreme Court and scholars, at times, have associated them together as expressing one principle. It turns out that each relies on unique foundational triggers and does not stand or fall with the other. This Article tackles this issue and provides a comprehensive topology for analyzing the respective contours of each …

Carpenter V. United States And The Fourth Amendment: The Best Way Forward, Stephen E. Henderson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

We finally have a federal ‘test case.’ In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court is poised to set the direction of the Fourth Amendment in the digital age. The case squarely presents how the twentieth-century third party doctrine will fare in contemporary times, and the stakes could not be higher. This Article reviews the Carpenter case and how it fits within the greater discussion of the Fourth Amendment third party doctrine and location surveillance, and I express a hope that the Court will be both a bit ambitious and a good measure cautious.

As for ambition, the Court …

Notice And Standing In The Fourth Amendment: Searches Of Personal Data, Jennifer Daskal

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In at least two recent cases, courts have rejected service providers’ capacity to raise Fourth Amendment claims on behalf of their customers. These holdings rely on longstanding Supreme Court doctrine establishing a general rule against third parties asserting the Fourth Amendment rights of others. However, there is a key difference between these two recent cases and those cases on which the doctrine rests. The relevant Supreme Court doctrine stems from situations in which someone could take action to raise the Fourth Amendment claim, even if the particular third-party litigant could not. In the situations presented by the recent cases, by …

Orwell's 1984 And A Fourth Amendment Cybersurveillance Nonintrusion Test, Margaret Hu

Faculty Publications

This Article describes a cybersurveillance nonintrusion test under the Fourth Amendment that is grounded in evolving customary law to replace the reasonable expectation of privacy test formulated in Katz v. United States. To illustrate how customary law norms are shaping modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, this Article examines the recurrence of judicial references to George Orwell’s novel, 1984, within the Fourth Amendment context when federal courts have assessed the constitutionality of modern surveillance methods. The Supreme Court has indicated that the Fourth Amendment privacy doctrine must now evolve to impose meaningful limitations on the intrusiveness of new surveillance technologies. …

Fbi's Carnivore: Under The Fourth Amendment And The Usa Patriot Act, Scott Griner

Oklahoma Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

Emailer Beware: The Fourth Amendment And Electronic Mail, E. Parker Lowe

Oklahoma Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

Lichtenberger And The Three Bears: Getting The Private Search Exception And Modern Digital Storage "Just Right", Samuel Crecelius

Texas A&M Law Review

Finding a happy medium is hard. Often, it is a challenge to find a workable balance between two unworkable extremes. Known as the “Goldilocks Principle,” this phenomenon has been observed in fields as diverse as developmental psychology and astrobiology. As Goldilocks found in the Three Bears’ house, “just right” may not come on the first attempt. We may have to explore the extremes of the spectrum—“too hot” and “too cold”—before we can settle on “just right. Goldilocks also discovered that this process is all the more difficult in a new environment—like the Three Bears’ house. Goldilocks persevered, however, until she …

Carpenter V. United States: Brief Of Amici Curiae Empirical Fourth Amendment Scholars In Support Of Petitioner, J. J. Prescott

Appellate Briefs

Amici are professors (identified in the Appendix) whose research and teaching include the Fourth Amendment, empirical analysis of the criminal justice system, and, specifically, empirical analyses of the public's "reasonable expectations." They file this brief to urge this Court to reverse the Sixth Circuit, recognize that the Fourth Amendment governs the inquiry here, and find that authorities violate the Fourth Amendment when law enforcement collect cell site location data without first obtaining a warrant.

The Court has recognized that public expectations of privacy are relevant to the Fourth Amendment. A growing body of social science research shows that a majority …

Brief Of Scholars Of The History And Original Meaning Of The Fourth Amendment As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Margaret Hu

Briefs

No abstract provided.

The Outer Limits: Imsi-Catchers, Technology, And The Future Of The Fourth Amendment, Ryan C. Chapman

Pepperdine Law Review

Recent advances in technology are posing new challenges for a legal system based on decades-old precedent. Nowhere is this more apparent than in law enforcement’s warrantless use of IMSI Catchers. These devices mimic a cell phone tower, and when the device is activated, cell phones will naturally connect to them. Law enforcement officers can use those intercepted cell phone signals to track a suspect’s movements in real time with startling accuracy. Scholarly commentary on these devices has largely concluded that their use requires a warrant. This Comment engages in a close examination of Fourth Amendment precedent and argues that, as …

Rule 41 Amendments Provide For A Drastic Expansion Of Government Authority To Conduct Computer Searches And Should Not Have Been Adopted By The Supreme Court, Markus Rauschecker

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Searching For Federal Judicial Power: Article Iii And The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Drinking From The Fire Hose: How Massive Self-Surveillance From The Internet Of Things Is Changing The Face Of Privacy, Steven I. Friedland

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Trust: A Model For Disclosure In Patent Law, Ari Ezra Waldman

Indiana Law Journal

How to draw the line between public and private is a foundational, first-principles question of privacy law, but the answer has implications for intellectual property, as well. This project is one in a series of papers about first-person disclosures of information in the privacy and intellectual property law contexts, and it defines the boundary between public and nonpublic information through the lens of social science —namely, principles of trust.

Patent law’s public use bar confronts the question of whether legal protection should extend to information previously disclosed to a small group of people. I present evidence that shows that current …

Civil Liberty Or National Security: The Battle Over Iphone Encryption, Karen Lowell

Georgia State University Law Review

On June 5, 2013, Edward Snowden released what would be the first of many documents exposing the vast breadth of electronic surveillance the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National Security Agency (NSA) had been conducting on millions of United States citizens. Although the federal agencies had legal authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to collect metadata from companies such as Verizon, many Americans considered this data collection to be a massive invasion of privacy.

Equipped with the knowledge of sweeping domestic surveillance programs, citizens and technology firms fighting for strong privacy and security protection, have started …

Game Of Phones: The Fourth Amendment Implications Of Real-Time Cell Phone Tracking, Cal Cumpstone

Cleveland State Law Review

With the help of technological advancements, law enforcement can now hijack a targeted individual’s cell phone to ping and track the phone’s exact location in real time. Based upon previous rulings, this new tracking process has apparently fallen into a "grey area" of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. However, real-time cell phone tracking should be a search in terms of the Fourth Amendment and, therefore, require a warrant. Real-time cell phone tracking infringes on an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy, violates the trespass doctrine as a trespass to chattels, and violates the Kyllo standard by using technology not in general public use …

Local Law Enforcement Jumps On The Big Data Bandwagon: Automated License Plate Recognition Systems, Infomation Privacy, And Access To Government Information, Bryce Clayton Newell

Maine Law Review

As government agencies and law enforcement departments increasingly adopt big-data surveillance technologies as part of their routine investigatory practice, personal information privacy concerns are becoming progressively more palpable. On the other hand, advancing technologies and data-mining potentially offer law enforcement greater ability to detect, investigate, and prosecute criminal activity. These concerns (for personal information privacy and the efficacy of law enforcement) are both very important in contemporary society. On one view, American privacy law has not kept up with advancing technological capabilities, and government agencies have arguably begun to overstep the acceptable boundaries of information access, violating the privacy of …

Is Wifi Worth It: The Hidden Dangers Of Public Wifi, Ellie Shahin

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

Autonomous Cars: Navigating The Patchwork Of Data Privacy Laws That Could Impact The Industry, Anthony Jones

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

Reviving The Fourth Amendment: Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy In A Cell Phone Age, 50 J. Marshall L. Rev. 555 (2017), Marisa Kay

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Carpenter V. United States: Brief Of Scholars Of Criminal Procedure And Privacy As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Andrew Ferguson

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Amici curiae are forty-two scholars engaged in significant research and/or teaching on criminal procedure and privacy law. This brief addresses issues that are within amici’s particular areas of scholarly expertise. They have a shared interest in clarifying the law of privacy in the digital era, and believe that a review of scholarly literature on the topic is helpful to answering the question in this case. This brief is co-authored by Harry Sandick, Kathrina Szymborski, & Jared Buszin of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.Carpenter v. United States presents an opportunity to reconsider the Fourth Amendment in the digital age. Cell …

Cloudy With A Chance Of Abused Privacy Rights: Modifying Third-Party Fourth Amendment Standing Doctrine Post-Spokeo, Sarah E. Pugh

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Simon Didn't Say: When Reconstruction Of A Private Search Goes Awry Under The Private Search Doctrine, John G. Chambers

Georgia Law Review

A privateparty conducting an unreasonablesearch of an
individual need not fear the Fourth Amendment as the
proscriptions therein are applicable against only the
government. The government, however, need not fear the
Fourth Amendment where it replicates that private party's
unreasonable search. As such, the Fourth Amendment is
not offended where the government directs the private

party to "reconstruct" its initial search. This
reconstruction doctrine breeds many questions in
application, particularly in the digital context. In
grappling with these questions, this Note demonstrates
that the current law provides no satisfying answers. It
proposes a new test to assess reconstructed private party …

The Fourth Amendment In A Digital World, Laura K. Donohue

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Fourth Amendment doctrines created in the 1970s and 1980s no longer reflect how the world works. The formal legal distinctions on which they rely—(a) private versus public space, (b) personal information versus third party data, (c) content versus non-content, and (d) domestic versus international—are failing to protect the privacy interests at stake. Simultaneously, reduced resource constraints are accelerating the loss of rights. The doctrine has yet to catch up with the world in which we live. A necessary first step for the Court is to reconsider the theoretical underpinning of the Fourth Amendment, to allow for the evolution of a …

Hotline Ping: Harmonizing Contemporary Cell Phone Technology With Traditional Fourth Amendment Protections, Brianne M. Chevalier

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Reasonable Zones Of Privacy"—The Supreme Court's Struggle To Find Clarity In The American Landscape Regarding Fourth Amendment Rights, Alex Alben

Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts

The U.S. Supreme Court has struggled over the years to develop the concept of what constitutes a "reasonable zone of privacy" when it comes to intrusion on an individual's physical space or activities. With the advent and widespread adoption of new technologies such as drones and listening devices, concern for protecting privacy has magnified, yet court doctrine remains inconsistent. The author, Washington State's Chief Privacy Officer, reviews the history of Supreme Court "search and seizure" rulings in prominent cases to identify both patterns and flaws on the topic of protecting citizen privacy.

The Third-Party Doctrine And The Future Of The Cloud, Neil M. Richards

Scholarship@WashULaw

When the government seeks electronic documents held in the cloud, what legal standard should apply? This simple question raises fundamental questions about the future of our civil liberties in the digital world. In a series of cases, government lawyers have argued that information shared with digital intermediaries—including emails and cloud-stored documents—can be seized without a warrant. Their argument rests upon a controversial Fourth Amendment principle known as the “Third-Party Doctrine,” which maintains that information shared even with trusted “third parties” loses a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment, and with it, the protection of the warrant requirement. Criminal …

An Expressive Theory Of Privacy Intrusions, Craig Konnoth

Publications

The harms of privacy intrusions are numerous. They include discrimination, reputational harm, and chilling effects on speech, thought, and behavior. However, scholarship has yet to fully recognize a kind of privacy harm that this article terms "expressive."

Depending on where the search is taking place and who the actors involved are--a teacher in a school, the police on the street, a food inspector in a restaurant--victims and observers might infer different messages from the search. The search marks the importance of certain societal values such as law enforcement or food safety. It can also send messages about certain groups by …