Showing posts with label Fourth Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fourth Amendment. Show all posts

January 30, 2018

Hu on Orwell's 1984 and a Fourth Amendment Cybersurveillance Nonintrusion Test

Margaret Hu, Washington and Lee University School of Law, is publishing Orwell's 1984 and a Fourth Amendment Cybersurveillance Nonintrusion Test in the Washington Law Review. Here is the abstract.
This Article describes a cybersurveillance nonintrusion test under the Fourth Amendment that is grounded in evolving customary law to replace the reasonable expectation of privacy test formulated in Katz v. United States. To illustrate how customary law norms are shaping modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, this Article examines the recurrence of judicial references to George Orwell’s novel, 1984, within the Fourth Amendment context when federal courts have assessed the constitutionality of modern surveillance methods. The Supreme Court has indicated that the Fourth Amendment privacy doctrine must now evolve to impose meaningful limitations on the intrusiveness of new surveillance technologies. A cybersurveillance nonintrusion test implicitly suggested by the Supreme Court in United States v. Jones first shifts the vantage point of the Fourth Amendment analysis from an individual-based tangible harm inquiry to an inquiry of a society-wide intangible harm — whether the modern surveillance method creates a “1984 problem” for society. A cybersurveillance nonintrusion test requires the government to justify the intrusion of the surveillance on society. A new test would remediate increasingly ineffective Fourth Amendment jurisprudence currently grounded in property and tort law. The Article argues that the adoption of a cybersurveillance nonintrusion test and the abandonment of the current privacy test is not only required; but, in practice, is already used by the federal courts.
Download the article from SSRN at the link.

October 21, 2016

June 13, 2016

"You Have the Right To Remain Silent": In the U.S. and Canada

Allan Levine discusses the history of Miranda v. Arizona, the difference between such constitutional rights in the U.S. and Canada, and (briefly) how Canadian viewers of U.S. law and order shows might take away the wrong message about their rights. Here, for the National Post.

December 2, 2015

Bandes on Ferguson and Changes in Legal Education

Susan A. Bandes, DePaul University College of Law, has published Moral Shock and Legal Education at 65 Journal of Legal Education 298 (2015). Here is the abstract.
This essay is part of a Journal of Legal Education symposium issue on how recent high profile revelations about racially discriminatory policing in Ferguson and elsewhere have affected the way law professors teach, think, write and talk about criminal justice, civil rights, and law in general.
Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

September 15, 2011

The Open Road and the Traffic Stop

Nancy Leong, University of Denver College of Law, has published The Open Road and the Traffic Stop: Narratives and Counter-Narratives of the American Dream. Here is the abstract.

American culture is steeped in the mythology of the open road. In our collective imagination, the road represents freedom, escape, friendship, romance, and above all, the possibility for a better life. But our shared dream of the open road comes to a halt in the mundane reality of the traffic stop - a judicially-authorized policing procedure in which an officer may pull over a vehicle if she has cause to believe the driver has committed even the most minor traffic violation. This paper examines the cultural texts - books, movies, songs - celebrating the open road and juxtaposes them against those documenting the traffic stop. The traffic stop, I conclude, interrupts the open road narrative closely associated with the American dream. Those stopped most frequently - in particular, racial minorities - are consequently denied full participation in an abiding national fantasy.
Download the paper from SSRN at the link.