Publication Date
2018
Document Type
Article
Organizational Units
Sturm College of Law
Abstract
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable “searches and seizures,” but in the digital age of stingray devices and IP tracking, what constitutes a search or seizure? The Supreme Court has held that the threshold question depends on and reflects the “reasonable expectations” of ordinary members of the public concerning their own privacy. For example, the police now exploit the “third party” doctrine to access data held by email and cell phone providers, without securing a warrant, on the Supreme Court’s intuition that the public has no expectation of privacy in that information. Is that assumption correct? If judges’ intuitions about privacy do not reflect actual public expectations, it may undermine the legitimacy of the criminal justice system, exacerbate social unrest, and produce unjust outcomes.
Publication Statement
Originally published in the California Law Review Volume 106 (2018). Copyright is held by the author. User is responsible for all copyright compliance.
Rights Holder
Bernard Chao, Catherine Durso, Ian Farrell, Christopher Robertson
Provenance
Received from author
File Format
application/pdf
Language
English (eng)
Extent
62 pgs
File Size
789 KB
Publication Title
California Law Review
Volume
106
First Page
263
Last Page
324
Recommended Citation
Bernard Chao, Catherine Durso, Ian Farrell & Christopher Robertson, Why Courts Fail to Protect Privacy: Race, Age, Bias, and Technology, 106 CALIF. L. REV. 263 (2018).
DOI Link
https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38GF0MW50
Included in
Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Evidence Commons, Fourth Amendment Commons, Judges Commons, Law and Race Commons