Fourth Amendment Commons^™

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.

Commodifying Policing: A Recipe For Community-Police Tensions, Nora V. Demleitner

Scholarly Articles

This Article, in Part II, begins with a description of how municipalities, at least since the recession of 2008, have fallen short of fully funding their departments. Part III focuses on four distinct outside funding components and their impact on policing. The first subsection discusses asset forfeitures, under both state and federal law. Subsection two highlights revenue derived from citations, often in the form of traffic tickets. A discussion of fees that are being added to fines, often to fund courts, probation agencies, and police departments, follows. The increasing amounts and types of fees imposed have substantially increased the burden …

Biometric Cyberintelligence And The Posse Comitatus Act, Margaret Hu

Scholarly Articles

This Article addresses the rapid growth of what the military and the intelligence community refer to as “biometric-enabled intelligence.” This newly emerging intelligence tool is reliant upon biometric databases—for example, digitalized storage of scanned fingerprints and irises, digital photographs for facial recognition technology, and DNA. This Article introduces the term “biometric cyberintelligence” to more accurately describe the manner in which this new tool is dependent upon cybersurveillance and big data’s massintegrative systems.

This Article argues that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, designed to limit the deployment of federal military resources in the service of domestic policies, will be difficult …

The Fourth Amendment Categorical Imperative, David Gray

Michigan Law Review Online

The vast majority of current Fourth Amendment doctrine is unfounded, incoherent, and dangerous. The culprit is the Supreme Court’s 1967 decision in Katz v. United States, which defines “search” as government conduct that violates subjectively manifested expectations of privacy “that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’ ” This is pure applesauce. Nowhere will you find a standard dictionary that defines “search” in these terms. Neither will you hear a native speaker of the English language use “search” in this sense unless her mind has been polluted by a semester of studying criminal procedure. The Court created this definition …

Data Breaches, Identity Theft, And Article Iii Standing: Will The Supreme Court Resolve The Split In The Circuits?, Bradford C. Mank

Notre Dame Law Review

In data breach cases, the plaintiff typically alleges that the defendant used inadequate computer security to protect the plaintiff’s personal data. In most, but not all cases, the plaintiff cannot prove that a hacker or thief has actually used or sold the data to the plaintiff’s detriment. In most cases, a plaintiff alleges that the defendant’s failure to protect his personal data has caused him damages by increasing his risk of suffering actual identity theft in the future and therefore imposed costs on the plaintiff when he reasonably takes measures to prevent future unauthorized third-party data access by purchasing credit …

Body Worn Cameras With Facial Recognition Technology: When It Constitutes A Search, Kelly Blount

Criminal Law Practitioner

No abstract provided.

The Benefits Outweigh The Costs: Illinois Should Apply State Exclusionary Rule As Remedy For Article I Section 6 Violations, 50 J. Marshall L. Rev. 397 (2017), Nicholas J. Kamide

UIC Law Review

This comment will argue that Illinois courts (1) are not restricted by their own judicially imposed lockstep doctrine from applying the exclusionary rule based on Article I Section 6 ("state exclusionary rule" herein); and (2) should specifically apply the state exclusionary rule as the remedy for Fourth Amendment violations (and Article I section 6 violations) instead of the exclusionary rule based on the language of the Fourth Amendment ("federal exclusionary rule" herein), which currently offers Illinois residents, and specifically criminal defendants, less constitutional protection.

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.

Extraterritorial Constitutionalism: A Rule Proposed, 50 J. Marshall L. Rev. 787 (2017), Joseph Alfe

UIC Law Review

Does the Fourth Amendment apply in cases of cross-border shootings of foreign nationals, when those shots were fired by United States Border Patrol agents from American soil, striking a victim in Mexico? In oral argument, Petitioner failed to heed the trail of breadcrumbs strewn at his feet by inquisitive Supreme Court Justices. A workable, yet narrow rule that would plug the critically important gap in application of the United States Constitution to remedy such cross-border atrocities, was not articulated. I propose one here. The world’s busiest border is that which is shared between the United States and Mexico. Our countries …

Recent Development: Sellman V. State: Absent Additional Circumstances, Consent To A Vehicle Search In A High Crime Area Does Not Create Reasonable Suspicion To Justify A Terry Frisk Of A Passenger Who Displays Nervous Behavior; Theft From A Vehicle Does Not Automatically Infer That An Individual Is Armed, Ashley N. Simmons

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that, under the totality of the circumstances, a law enforcement officer did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry frisk of a passenger during a traffic stop. Sellman v. State, 449 Md. 526, 544, 144 A.3d 771, 782 (2016). The court ruled that a police department policy authorizing officers to conduct Terry frisks based on consent to search a vehicle violates the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 557, 144 A.3d at 790. The court further held that the crime of theft from vehicles does not imply the possession of a deadly weapon. Id. …

Policing Predictive Policing, Andrew Ferguson

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Predictive policing is sweeping the nation, promising the holy grail of policing – preventing crime before it happens. Police have embraced predictive analytics and data-driven metrics to improve law enforcement tactics, practice, and strategy. Predictive “hot spots” become targets for intensive police surveillance. Targeted “hot people” become suspects. In big cities and small towns, data-based predictions drive police patrol schedules. Risk assessment algorithms target suspicious individuals. Increased data collection fuels a growing feedback loop requiring more robust data crunching systems.All of these predictive innovations share one thing in common: a belief that crime can be understood by identifying and analyzing …

The 'Smart' Fourth Amendment, Andrew Ferguson

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

“Smart” devices radiate data, detailing a continuous, intimate, and revealing pattern of daily life. Billions of sensors will soon collect data from smartphones, smart homes, smart cars, medical devices and an evolving assortment of consumer and commercial products. But, what are these data trails to the Fourth Amendment? Does data emanating from devices on or about our bodies, houses, things, and digital effects fall within the Fourth Amendment’s protection of “persons, homes, papers, or effects”? Does interception of this information violate a “reasonable expectation of privacy?”The “Internet of Things” and the growing proliferation of smart devices create new opportunities for …

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 …

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

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

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 thirdparty litigant could not. In the situations presented by the recent cases, by …

Who Let The Dogs Out—And While We’Re At It, Who Said They Could Sniff Me?: How The Unregulated Street Sniff Threatens Pedestrians’ Privacy Rights, Jacey Lara Gottlieb

Brooklyn Law Review

The Fourth Amendment affords United States citizens the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Throughout the last two centuries, the Supreme Court has developed extensive case law that has created a somewhat formulaic approach to determining whether one’s Fourth Amendment rights have been violated—namely, the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test. The Court has applied this test to afford the home, vehicle, airport, and the pedestrian all varying levels of privacy rights, and has upheld most of these respective levels of privacy in the context of the police canine sniff. The …

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.

Brief Of Scholars Of The History And Original Meaning Of The Fourth Amendment As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner: Carpenter V. United States, Margaret Hu

Scholarly Articles

Law enforcement officials wanted to learn where Petitioner Timothy Carpenter was at the time of certain robberies. To figure that out, they obtained records from his cellular service provider showing the movements of his cell phone. Examining those records, they were able to track Carpenter’s whereabouts over a four-month period. Obtaining and examining those records was a “search” in any normal sense of the word—a search of documents and a search for Carpenter and one of his personal effects. It was therefore a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. When the Amendment was ratified, to “search” meant to …

Mass Suppression: Aggregation And The Fourth Amendment, Nirej Sekhon

Georgia Law Review

The FourthAmendment's exclusionary rule requires that
criminal courts suppress evidence obtained as a result of
an unconstitutionalsearch or seizure. The Supreme Court
has repeatedly stated that suppression is purely
regulatory, not remedial. Its only purpose is to deter
future police misconduct, not to remedy past privacy or
liberty harms suffered by the defendant. Exclusion, in
other words, is for the benefit of community members who
might, sometime in the future, be subject to police
misconduct like that endured by the defendant.
Exclusion's regulatory purpose would be greatly aided if
criminal courts could identify when a suppression motion
involved Fourth Amendment …

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 …