Fourth Amendment Commons^™

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Core Criminal Procedure, Steven Arrigg Koh

Faculty Scholarship

Constitutional criminal procedural rights are familiar to contemporary criminal law scholars and practitioners alike. But today, U.S. criminal justice may diverge substantially from its centuries-old framework when all three branches recognize only a core set of inviolable rights, implicitly or explicitly discarding others. This criminal procedural line drawing takes place when the U.S. criminal justice system engages in law enforcement cooperation with foreign criminal justice systems in order to advance criminal cases.

This Article describes the two forms of this criminal procedural line drawing. The first is a “core criminal procedure” approach, rooted in fundamental rights, that arises in the …

Suspicionless Witness Stops: The New Racial Profiling, Michael Gentithes

Akron Law Faculty Publications

Young men of color in high-crime neighborhoods are surrounded by poverty and crime, yet distrustful of the police who frequently stop, frisk, and arrest them and their friends. Every encounter with the police carries the potential for a new arrest or worse, fostering a culture of fear and distrust of law enforcement. That culture exacerbates the problems facing the officers patrolling these neighborhoods as more crimes go unsolved because witnesses are unwilling to come forward. In the past several decades, officers have responded by using a stop-and-frisk technique of dubious constitutionality to control crime. Despite its disastrous implications for the …

Pandemic Surveillance: The New Predictive Policing, Michael Gentithes, Harold J. Krent

Akron Law Faculty Publications

In Part I, we examine the growth of predictive policing, which similarly treats some individuals differently based on the likelihood that they will either commit or be the victim of a crime. If such surveillance does not lead to detention, incursion on the right to travel, or other loss of freedom, we believe such efforts to be constitutional, even though not always wise. Use of data to prioritize law enforcement efforts poses no insuperable constitutional obstacles. But deployment of predictive analytics can result in infringement on the right to liberty, as we relate. In Part II, therefore, we apply the …

App Permissions & The Third-Party Doctrine (Symposium), Michael Gentithes

Akron Law Faculty Publications

In the spirit of Professor Tokson's effort to consider the next wave of Fourth Amendment cases likely to reach the Supreme Court, this essay addresses a looming technological challenge to the Court's third-party doctrine: the permissions that app developers obtain on our digital devices. Such permissions - which are either granted by the user upon installation of the app or permitted by the operating system without any user input - entitle app developers to access and send data from the device, such as the user's location services, motion sensors, contacts, calendars, social media accounts, camera, or microphone. Carpenter contracted the …

Privacy And Pandemics, Clarisa Long

Faculty Scholarship

The beginning of 2020 marked an unexpected turn for the world, the global pandemic of COVID-19 has affected every aspect of life. It has also created an unprecedented opportunity for governments to justify the expansion of their surveillance and collection of data. The foregoing essay, which was first published in Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive of the Columbia Law School focuses on two types of data collection – governmental mass collection of nonanonymized location data and state-collected nonanonymized data on people's health and immunity status. Several countries have applied one or both practices and it is relevant to look into …

What Would Mlk Do?: A Civil Rights Model Of “Good Citizenship” In Criminal Procedure, Trevor George Gardner

Scholarship@WashULaw

Good citizenship and eager participation in police investigations would seem to fit hand-in-glove. The good citizen helps to enforce the criminal law, particularly if the physical safety of the citizenry is thought to be at risk. But as Bennett Capers argues in his essay, Criminal Procedure and the Good Citizen, this version of the good citizen—crafted and propagated by our nation’s highest court—falls into direct tension with the activist principles animating the Civil Rights Movement. For instance, Martin Luther King, Jr., insisted that the citizen not suffer from a cultural condition Capers describes as “too much respect for majoritarian …

A Unified Constitutional View Of Financial Punishment: Synthesizing The Excessive Fines Clause And Bearden­ Based Protections, Joshua A. Feinzig

Faculty Scholarship

This Note coordinates the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause with the Fourteenth Amendment wealth-discrimination protection set forth in Bearden v. Georgia It is generally assumed that the two protections operate independently: while the Excessive Fines Clause protects individuals against exorbitant financial obligations, Bearden limits the state from converting criminal debt into a severe liberty deprivation. But in recognizing how the two doctrines are normatively and functionally reinforcing, this Note proposes a single framework for considering financial punishment's constitutionality.

If the Eighth Amendment protection applies at the imposition of a financial punishment, Bearden provides a "second look" at the constitutionality of …

Brief Of Professors Of Law, Us V. Bergdahl, Joshua E. Kastenberg, Rachel E. Vanlandingham, Geoffrey S. Corn

Faculty Scholarship

When scrutinizing executive actions for unlawful command influence, this Court must account for a president’s immense power over the military. The extant judicial test for unlawful command influence – a violation of due process in the military setting – is a contextual one, and hence must consider the unique and unparalleled authority of the Commander-In-Chief over the military and individual service-members when the president’s actions are at issue. This executive power should also be evaluated in light of its myriad, and historically important, constitutional and statutory constraints – some predating the birth of the United States – that appropriately continue …

Lawful Searches Incident To Unlawful Arrests: A Reform Proposal, Mark A. Summers

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Cops And Cars: How The Automobile Drove Fourth Amendment Law, Tracey Maclin

Faculty Scholarship

This is an essay on Professor Sarah A. Seo’s new book, Policing the Open Road: How Cars Transformed American Freedom (Harvard Univ. Press 2019). I focus on Professor Seo’s analysis of Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) and Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949). Carroll is important not only because it was the Court’s first car case. Understanding Carroll (and Brinegar, which solidified and expanded Carroll’s holding) is essential because, nearly one hundred years later, its logic continues to direct how the modern Court resolves Fourth Amendment claims of motorists. Put simply, a majority of today’s …

Fourth Amendment Textualism, Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonable searches” is one of the most storied constitutional commands Yet after decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence, a coherent definition of the term “search” remains surprisingly elusive Even the justices know they have a problem Recent opinions only halfheartedly apply the controlling “reasonable expectation of privacy” test and its wildly unpopular cousin, “third-party doctrine,” with a few justices in open revolt.

These fissures hint at the Court’s openness to a new approach Unfortunately, no viable alternatives appear on the horizon The justices themselves offer little in the way of a replacement And scholars’ proposals exhibit …

Fourth Amendment Textualism, Jeffrey Bellin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The Fourth Amendment's prohibition of "unreasonable searches" is one of the most storied constitutional commands. Yet after decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence, a coherent definition of the term "search" remains surprisingly elusive. Even the justices know they have a problem. Recent opinions only halfheartedly apply the controlling "reasonable expectation of privacy" test and its wildly unpopular cousin, "third-party doctrine," with a few justices in open revolt. These fissures hint at the Court's openness to a new approach. Unfortunately, no viable alternatives appear on the horizon. The justices themselves offer little in the way of a replacement. And scholars' proposals exhibit …

To Knock Or Not To Knock? No-Knock Warrants And Confrontational Policing, Brian Dolan

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note proceeds in three parts. Part I begins by explaining what no-knock warrants are and why they are used. Part I then addresses recent state legislative efforts to reform no-knock warrant use and argues that these efforts, however well-intentioned, are insufficient. Part I will also provide a brief history of how no-knock warrant use developed and gives an overview of the current status of state law regarding no-knock warrants. Part II argues that, contrary to the arguments of no-knock proponents, elimination of no-knock warrants and strict adherence to the knock-and-announce requirement is a more effective way to ensure …

A Warrant Requirement Resurgence? The Fourth Amendment In The Roberts Court, Benjamin J. Priester

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Over many years, the United States Supreme Court has developed an extensive body of precedent interpreting and enforcing the provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement agents conducting criminal investigations. Commonly called the “warrant requirement,” one key component of this case law operates to deem some police investigatory techniques to be unconstitutional unless they are conducted pursuant to a search warrant issued in advance by a judge. The terms of the doctrine and its exceptions also authorize other investigatory actions as constitutionally permissible without a search warrant. …

Katz, Carpenter, And Classical Conservatism, Nicholas A. Kahn-Fogel

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy

In 1967, in Katz v. United States, the Supreme Court adopted a privacy-based framework for determining whether government conduct constitutes a Fourth Amendment search. Under that standard, a search occurs when the government infringes on an expectation of privacy that "society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'" Although the Court qualified its commitment to Katz in 2012 by asserting that an older, property-based approach survived Katz and remains the first-line test for identifying Fourth Amendment searches, most of the Court today is committed to preserving a role for the Katz standard. Yet, most of the justices have also recognized problems …

Standing To Challenge Familial Searches Of Commercial Dna Databases, Hillary L. Kody

William & Mary Law Review

In April 2018, police officers arrested Joseph James DeAngelo. DeAngelo, the officers claimed, was the “Golden State Killer,” a man who committed dozens of murders and over fifty sexual assaults in California in the 1970s and 1980s. The Golden State Killer had long eluded police, even though his DNA profile linked him to dozens of violent crimes. While law enforcement officials from several jurisdictions in California had collected his DNA from crime scenes, the Golden State Killer’s crimes predated modern DNA analysis. Police found little use for the profile without a suspect’s profile to compare to it.

Nearly forty years …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

"23 And Plea": Limiting Police Use Of Genealogy Sites After Carpenter V. United States, Antony Barone Kolenc

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

A New Third-Party Doctrine: The Telephone Metadata Program And Carpenter V. United States, Mary-Kathryn Takeuchi

Notre Dame Law Review

This Note will answer the question of whether bulk metadata collection is still defensible under the third-party doctrine. It ultimately concludes that Chief Justice Roberts incorrectly asserted that Carpenter v. United States will not impact the application of the third-party doctrine to collection techniques involving national security, and that the warrantless collection of bulk metadata under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is no longer defensible by the third-party doctrine. In Section I.A, this Note discusses traditional Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in Katz v. United States and the establishment of the third-party doctrine as a bright-line rule in United States v. Miller …