Fourth Amendment Commons^™

After The Age Of Discretion: Policing And Privacy In A World Of Automated Roadway Enforcement, Trayce Hockstad, Lawrence Cappello

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Our Fourth Amendment attempts to harmonize in fifty-eight words the tenuous, antagonistic relationship between privacy and public safety. These two values appear to be deadlocked in a contentious legal orbit, leaving behind them a trail of fascinating but foreboding jurisprudence in American law. The fundamental need of individuals for spaces of seclusion from government surveillance has endured a slow siphoning of its constitutional protection by the encroaching definition of the “public” and the perceived need to police every person and place that may be considered so. Nowhere has this proven truer than our nation’s roadways. As the judicial system …

Policing Emotions: What Social Psychology Can Teach Fourth Amendment Doctrine, Wayne A. Logan

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Imperfect Protection Against Perfect Enforcement: When Procedure Is Not Enough, William S. Fallon

Connecticut Law Review

Government technology that exclusively detects illegal conduct is per se constitutional. Today, the Fourth Amendment provides no protection—zero—against government technology that identifies illegality without also revealing private, innocent behavior.

Meanwhile, alarmingly, government is rapidly developing—and deploying— technology that bypasses the need to examine private, innocent behavior in its detection of wrongdoing. Government can know there is contraband in your bedroom drawer without the need to rummage through that drawer, your home, or any of your private information and possessions. Government can know there is illegal content on your phone without the need to search through that phone or any of …

Will Bruen Kill Cops?, Peter N. Salib, Guha Krishnamurthi

Fordham Law Review Online

Criminal procedure is a balancing act. On one hand, it must allow law enforcement officers to protect the public and themselves. On the other hand, criminal procedure must safeguard citizens’ individual constitutional rights—privacy, physical liberty, and bodily integrity. And now, the right to bear arms.

There is a serious tension here. Landmark Fourth Amendment cases like Terry v. Ohio, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, and Chimel v. California give the police wide latitude to seize firearms on the assumption that guns are dangerous. But these doctrines largely evolved before the Second Amendment’s ascendance. In District of Columbia v. Heller, …

Egbert V. Boule And The Dwindling Bivens Doctrine, Luke Smith

MC Law Review

No abstract provided.

What's Love Got To Do With It? Davis V. Henderson And A Proposed Revision To Mississippi's Termination Of Child Support Standard, Maddie Woodhead

MC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Juror Challenges And Csli: A Rule 16 Revision To Maintain Impartial Juries, Ivy Kaplan

Northwestern University Law Review

The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants “the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State.” Voir dire, the procedure during which the prosecution and the defense may challenge prospective jurors for cause or exercise peremptory challenges, purports to uphold this right. When the prosecution has access to cellular geolocation data on prospective jurors that the defense lacks, however, it may jeopardize the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights.

This Note proposes a solution to that problem in the form of an addition to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. …

United States V. Jones: Big Brother And The "Common Good" Versus The Fourth Amendment And Your Right To Privacy, Melanie Reid

Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

State V. Cloutier: Implied Invitees, Pretext And Plain View Under The Fourth Amendment, Dennis M. Doiron

Maine Law Review

Law enforcement officers often have occasion to follow the path to the front door of a residence in order to speak to its occupant. Upon answering the door, the occupant may hear a complaint about his barking dog, a query as to whether he witnessed the burglary next door, or a plea seeking support for the police department's Christmas charity drive. Occasionally, a police officer follows the path to a person's door and unexpectedly observes incriminating evidence or activities. In such cases, the police officer's conduct generates the issue of whether his observation implicates the fourth amendment's prohibition against unreasonable …

The Problem Of Third-Party Consent In Fourth Amendment Searches: Toward A "Conservative" Reading Of The Matlock Decision, Robert Deschene

Maine Law Review

In United States v. Matlock, the United States Supreme Court delivered its most recent and comprehensive statement on the doctrine of third-party consent. Under the doctrine, police may search a defendant's home or effects without first obtaining a judicially issued search warrant. Instead of this traditional prerequisite for a valid fourth amendment search, the police need only have the voluntary consent of a third person who possesses "common authority" over or a "sufficient relationship" to the area to be searched. At that point, the defendant's own consent becomes largely irrelevant. Both the United States and Maine constitutions provide protection against …

Unfenced: The Fourth Circuit Gives Geofencing Its First Appellate Go-Ahead In United States V. Chatrie, Jordan Wallace-Wolf

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

In United States v. Chatrie, the Fourth Circuit issued the first federal appellate opinion on the Fourth Amendment status of geofencing queries. The opinion is significant because geofences present a conceptual challenge to the framework of Carpenter v. United States, the reigning Supreme Court precedent on the Fourth Amendment status of digital searches. That opinion held that long-term tracking of a target individual was a search. However, geofencing reveals information about an indeterminate number of individuals for only a short time, in virtue of their being at a target location during a target span of time. Does the …

State V. Cloutier: Implied Invitees, Pretext And Plain View Under The Fourth Amendment, Dennis M. Doiron

Maine Law Review

Law enforcement officers often have occasion to follow the path to the front door of a residence in order to speak to its occupant. Upon answering the door, the occupant may hear a complaint about his barking dog, a query as to whether he witnessed the burglary next door, or a plea seeking support for the police department's Christmas charity drive. Occasionally, a police officer follows the path to a person's door and unexpectedly observes incriminating evidence or activities. In such cases, the police officer's conduct generates the issue of whether his observation implicates the fourth amendment's prohibition against unreasonable …

Back To The Future: Revisiting State Constitutions To Protect Against New Technological Intrusions, Matthew Radford

Washington and Lee Law Review

The Fourth Amendment is crucial for protecting Americans from government intrusion. However, new technologies such as pole cameras, reverse keyword searches, and geofence searches provide new ways for governments to gather information about individuals. As these new technologies develop, the Fourth Amendment has struggled to advance alongside this new technology.

Thankfully, the Fourth Amendment is not the only protection Americans have from government intrusion. Every single state has its own state constitution and analog to the Federal Fourth Amendment. In fact, some states had their own analog amendments even before the adoption of the Federal Fourth Amendment. While oftentimes the …

University Of The District Of Columbia Law Review, University Of The District Of Columbia Law Review

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Black Lives Still Matter: The Unconstitutionality Of The Reasonableness Standard In The Doctrine Of Qualified Immunity, Angela D. Minor, Esq.

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mental Health Response To 911 Calls: Defunding The Police, Now With All Of The Danger And None Of The Protection, Marcia M. Ziegler

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dobbs Was Wrong: The Liberty To Choose To Give Birth Should Be Federally Protected, Alysa J. Wiggins

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Analysis Of United States V. Morta: Refining The Application Of The Other-Indicia Approach To Criminal-Alias Mail, Nicholas Manning

Pepperdine Law Review

Americans who use their legal names to send and receive mail through traditional postal services have long maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy in that mail under the Fourth Amendment. Courts have also recognized that even those who use aliases with traditional postal services have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their mail. But circuit courts have split over whether Americans who use aliases in mail purely for criminal purposes—such as sending or receiving drugs—should have that same expectation of privacy. More specifically, courts disagree over the correct approach to analyze a defendant’s criminal-alias mail for purposes of Fourth Amendment …

Dude, Where’S My Data? A Legislative Band-Aid For Data Brokers’ Bullet Hole In Consumer Privacy Protection, Emily Bushman

Catholic University Law Review

The development and proliferation of the Internet, GPS, cell phones, social media, and the associated data that support these now ubiquitous technologies have created a new ecosystem of information making up a person’s digital identity. Our digital footprints have traditionally been subject to different levels of privacy protection depending upon the kind of data at issue. Over time, court decisions have revealed tensions and a lack of consistency on the question of how the protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment apply to an individual’s digital footprint and their reasonable expectations of privacy over it. This Comment will examine the gaps …

Going Cashless: Privacy Implications For Gun Control In A Digital Economy, Liza Goldenberg

The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law

This paper will examine how, given the United States’ shift toward a cashless economy, the country’s top credit-card companies’ potential decision to implement a new merchant code for firearm-related transactions as a method of gun control will backfire, jeopardizing consumer privacy and leading to unregulated transactions through cryptocurrencies. Since the majority of gun violence stems from firearm transactions not involving credit cards, credit-card companies should abandon the new merchant code that dissuades Americans from exercising their fundamental rights. The American economy should focus on slowing the shift toward a digital economy so that federal and state governments can implement legislation …