Fourth Amendment Commons^™

The Anatomy Of A Search: Intrusiveness And The Fourth Amendment, Renée Mcdonald Hutchins

University of Richmond Law Review

In this essay, I contend that when evaluating the constitutionality of enhanced surveillance devices, the existing test for assessing the occurrence of a Fourth Amendment search should be modified. Specifically, I suggest that intrusiveness should be unambiguously adopted by the Court as the benchmark for assessing and defining the existence of a search under the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, intrusiveness should be clearly defined to require an examination of two factors: the functionality of a challenged form of surveillance and the potential for disclosure created by the device.

Issue 4: Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Proportionality, Privacy, And Public Opinion: A Reply To Kerr And Swire, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In 2007, I published Privacy at Risk: The New Government Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment.' The immediate trigger for the book was the recent upsurge in government use of technology to monitor public and private behavior, and more particularly the tremendous increase in government surveillance after 9/11 using techniques such as data mining, phone and computer intercepts, and public camera systems. The primary analytical target of the book, however, was more general: Supreme Court case law that, read broadly, permits much of this technological surveillance to take place without impinging on any constitutional interests. In an effort to counteract this …

Privacy Revisited: Gps Tracking As Search And Seizure, Bennett L. Gershman

Pace Law Review

Part I of this Article discusses the facts in People v. Weaver, the majority and dissenting opinions in the Appellate Division, Third Department decision, and the majority and dissenting opinions in the Court of Appeals decision. Part II addresses the question that has yet to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court—whether GPS tracking of a vehicle by law enforcement constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Part III addresses the separate question that the Court of Appeals did not address in Weaver—whether the surreptitious attachment of a GPS device to a vehicle constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. …

Safford Unified School District #1 V. Redding: Why Qualified Immunity Is A Poor Fit In Fourth Amendment School Search Cases, Eric W. Clarke

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

Flexing Judicial Muscles: Did The Ninth Circuit Abandon Judicial Restraint In United States V. Comprehensive Druge Testing, Inc.?, Allen H. Quist

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

The Death Of Suspicion, Fabio Arcila Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

At the nation’s founding, search warrants and the concept of suspicion were well entrenched as a means of limiting governmental search power. This tradition largely explains why today’s Fourth Amendment law includes two foundational black letter rules: the presumptive warrant requirement and the presumptive suspicion requirement. Unfortunately, neither of these rules is correct. Certainly they have historical support, especially in the common law. But whether they reflect the totality of our historic experience is questionable, especially when civil search practices are considered. More importantly, modern developments—such as urban life and technological advancements, the rise of the regulatory state, and post-9/11 …

"You Crossed The Fog Line!"—Kansas, Pretext, And The Fourth Amendment, Melanie D. Wilson

Scholarly Articles

In Whren, the United States Supreme Court sanctioned pretextual traffic stops. In practice the holding of Whren condones police investigations that target certain suspect classes of people, like Hispanics, for increased police scrutiny. In permitting pretextual stops, the Court ignored the risk that such practices will encourage police to distort the truth, overlooked the cost of under-enforcement of the laws, and ignored the consequences to the criminal justice system of race and ethnicity based discrimination.

Kansas law exacerbates these risks by making fog-line stops a model for protecting ulterior motives from a sifting judicial inquiry. In Kansas, it makes …

Improbable Cause: A Case For Judging Police By A More Majestic Standard, Melanie D. Wilson

Scholarly Articles

Several prior studies have demonstrated that police sometimes, if not often, lie in an attempt to avoid the effects of the exclusionary rule. This study of federal trial judges in the District of Kansas suggests that judges may be fostering this police perjury. Judges may unwittingly encourage police perjury because they subconsciously recognize that acknowledging perjury will probably result in release of a culpable defendant. Judges may also permit perjury because they cannot determine when police are lying. In either case, the Supreme Court majority's conception of the exclusionary rule naturally leads trial judges to deny defendants' motions to suppress. …

A Fourth Amendment For The Poor Alone: Subconstitutional Status And The Myth Of The Inviolate Home, Jordan C. Budd

Law Faculty Scholarship

For much of our nation’s history, the poor have faced pervasive discrimination in the exercise of fundamental rights. Nowhere has the impairment been more severe than in the area of privacy. This Article considers the enduring legacy of this tradition with respect to the Fourth Amendment right to domestic privacy. Far from a matter of receding historical interest, the diminution of the poor’s right to privacy has accelerated in recent years and now represents a powerful theme within the jurisprudence of poverty. Triggering this development has been a series of challenges to aggressive administrative practices adopted by localities in the …

The Spot Program: Hello Racial Profiling, Goodbye Fourth Amendment?, Deborah L. Meyer

University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class

No abstract provided.

Photo Enforcement Programs: Are They Permissible Under The United States Constitution?, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 463 (2010), Paul Mcnaughton

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gps Monitoring May Cause Orwell To Turn In His Grave, But Will It Escape Constitutional Challenges? A Look At Gps Monitoring Of Domestic Violence Offenders In Illinois, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 845 (2010), Mary Ann Scholl

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Case For Stewart Over Harlan On 24/7 Physical Surveillance, Afsheen John Radsan

Faculty Scholarship

This Article explains why the government’s physical surveillance can reach a point in terms of duration and intensity that it becomes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. As references, Katz v. United States and Kyllo v. United States stand out from the canon. Katz, decided in 1967, swept away a prior emphasis on property rights and trespass laws to hold that the electronic monitoring of a phone booth was a search. Since then, the two-part test from Justice Harlan’s concurring opinion has received as much attention as the totality-of-the-circumstances test in Justice Stewart’s majority opinion. Kyllo, decided just months before …

Mapp V. Ohio's Unsung Hero: The Suppression Hearing As Morality Play, Scott E. Sundby

Articles

No abstract provided.

Continuing Seizure And The Fourth Amendment: Conceptual Discord And Evidentiary Uncertainty In United States V. Dupree, Darby G. Sullivan

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

How Far Can The Automobile Exception Go? How Searches Of Computers And Similar Devices Push It To The Limit, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1119 (2010), Andrew Wrona

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Danger To Confidential Communications In The Mismatch Between The Fourth Amendment's "Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy" And The Confidentiality Of Evidentiary Privileges, Robert P. Mosteller, Kenneth S. Broun

Campbell Law Review

In May 2009, a bare majority of the Supreme Court of North Carolina decided State v. Rollins, making a serious mistake in privilege law that if applied generally will undermine the valued protections of evidentiary privileges. Ordinarily, few might criticize a ruling admitting statements like those made by the defendant, Mickey Rollins, who indicated his guilt for a homicide. However, Rollins' statements were made to his wife, and under established precedent, those conversations should have been ruled a privileged marital communication.

Suspicion And The Protection Of Fourth Amendment Values, Fabio Arcila Jr.

Scholarly Works

Suspicion is perhaps the core foundational principle through which we seek to protect and vindicate Fourth Amendment values. Fourth Amendment law could not be clearer, and repeats over and over again, that it proceeds from a presumptive suspicion requirement. We are all so familiar with that proposition that we can easily incant it: a governmental search is presumptively unconstitutional unless supported by some threshold of prior suspicion. Though suspicion is thus a hallmark of Fourth Amendment black letter law, I come to critique it. I critique it because the presumptive suspicion requirement's provenance is historically questionable, both as a matter …

Mapp V. Ohio Revisited: A Law Clerk's Diary, Polly J. Price

Faculty Articles

The 1960 Supreme Court Term laid the groundwork for the subsequent revolution in the relationship between state and federal law accomplished by the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren. The "most famous search and seizure case in American history" - Mapp v. Ohio - would be decided that Term. Mapp held that the Fourth Amendment's protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" required the exclusion of evidence found through an illegal search by state and local police officers, extending to the states a rule that had previously applied only to federal law enforcement. Mapp became a pivotal chapter in the …