Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Privacy Law
Aerial Trespass And The Fourth Amendment, Randall F. Khalil
Aerial Trespass And The Fourth Amendment, Randall F. Khalil
Michigan Law Review
Since 1973, courts have analyzed aerial surveillance under the Fourth Amendment by applying the test from Katz v. United States, which states that a search triggers the Fourth Amendment when a government actor violates a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.” The Supreme Court applied Katz to aerial surveillance three times throughout the 1980s, yet this area of the law remains unsettled and outcomes are unpredictable. In 2012, the Supreme Court recognized an alternative to the Katz test in Jones v. United States, which held that a search triggers the Fourth Amendment when a government actor physically intrudes into …
Another Katz Moment?: Privacy, Property, And A Dna Database, Claire Mena
Another Katz Moment?: Privacy, Property, And A Dna Database, Claire Mena
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The understanding of these words seems to shift as new technologies emerge. As law enforcement’s arsenal of surveillance techniques has grown to include GPS tracking, cell phones, and cell site location information (CSLI), the Supreme Court has applied Fourth Amendment protections to these modern tools. Law enforcement continues to use one pervasive surveillance technique without limitations: the routine collection of DNA. In 2013, the Supreme Court in Maryland v. King held that law enforcement may routinely …
The Sacred Fourth Amendment Text, Christopher Slobogin
The Sacred Fourth Amendment Text, Christopher Slobogin
Michigan Law Review Online
The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence governing the Fourth Amendment’s “threshold”—a word meant to refer to the types of police actions that trigger the amendment’s warrant and reasonableness requirements—has confounded scholars and students alike since Katz v. United States. Before that 1967 decision, the Court’s decisions on the topic were fairly straightforward, based primarily on whether the police trespassed on the target’s property or property over which the target had control. After that decision—which has come to stand for the proposition that a Fourth Amendment search occurs if police infringe an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as …
How Definitive Is Fourth Amendment Textualism?, Evan H. Caminker
How Definitive Is Fourth Amendment Textualism?, Evan H. Caminker
Michigan Law Review Online
Professor Jeffrey Bellin’s excellent article advances a comprehensive and straightforward textual approach to determining what policing activities constitute “searches” triggering the protections of the Fourth Amendment. Bellin’s thesis is that a text-based approach to interpreting the Amendment is superior to the Supreme Court’s current approach, which ever since Katz v. United States has defined “search” primarily by reference to a non-textual “reasonable expectation of privacy” standard. After soundly criticizing the ungrounded and highly subjective nature of the Katz test, Bellin declares that the Court should instead simply follow where the text leads: the Amendment protects people from a search, meaning …
Spies In The Skies: Dirtboxes And Airplane Electronic Surveillance, Brian L. Owsley
Spies In The Skies: Dirtboxes And Airplane Electronic Surveillance, Brian L. Owsley
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Electronic surveillance in the digital age is essentially a cat-and-mouse game between governmental agencies that are developing new techniques and technologies for surveillance, juxtaposed against privacy rights advocates who voice concerns about such technologies. In November 2014, there was a discovery of a new twist on a relatively old theme. Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Marshals Service was running a surveillance program employing devices—dirtboxes—that gather all cell phone numbers in the surrounding area. Other federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Agency, Immigration and Custom Enforcement, and the Department of Homeland Security, are also documented to have …
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
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 …
A World Without Privacy: Why Property Does Not Define The Limits Of The Right Against Unreasonable Searches And Seizures, Sherry F. Colb
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 …
The Fourth Amendment And New Technologies: Constitutional Myths And The Case For Caution, Orin S. Kerr
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
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 …
Reconsideration Of The Katz Expectation Of Privacy Test, Michigan Law Review
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, …