Popular in Law

Human Rights Law

Human Rights and Corruption: Problems and Potential of Individualising a Systemic Problem

Max Planck Institute Anne Peters

Law

A statistical approach to law school citation rankings

University of Virginia Joshua Fischman

Constitutional Law

What is constitutional ideology?

University of Oxford Nick Barber

Civil Procedure Law

Politics, Identity, and Class Certification on the U.S. Courts of Appeals

University of Pennsylvania Sean Farhang

Law

Diversity and Social Mobility in the UK legal profession

Law Society I. Stephanie Boyce

Internet Law

The Law of AI for Good

University of San Diego Orly Lobel

Human Rights Law

Transforming Restorative Justice for Transitional Settings

University of Nottingham Kerry Clamp

Eavesdropping, the Fourth Amendment, and the Common Law

View more insights in Professional - Law - Human Rights Law

View more figures from University of San Diego

View the page of Donald Dripps

Read the Study

Next in Human Rights Law

Human Rights and Corruption: Problems and Potential of Individualising a Systemic Problem

Anne Peters | Max Planck Institute

Making or breaking the cycle of corruption

Dilan Nenningsland | Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Donald Dripps discusses that the Fourth Amendment’s text does not protect “persons, houses, papers and effects” but rather protects the right to be secure in persons, houses, papers and effects. The common law treated eavesdropping as a violation of the right to the security of the home.

Image courtesy of interviewee. March 27, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

This video discusses the complexities surrounding the Fourth Amendment and electronic surveillance in the context of legal protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. It explains that a search warrant is required to intercept phone calls or access emails and texts, a process governed by laws established by Congress. The necessity for a warrant arises from the Supreme Court case Katz v. United States, which expanded the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment to include a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.

Historically, debates have centered around whether the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted narrowly to only cover physical intrusions, as seen in the Olmsted case, or more broadly to encompass various forms of privacy invasions, including eavesdropping and the collection of data in modern contexts. Landmark cases such as Kyllo v. United States and Carpenter v. United States demonstrate how the courts have grappled with these issues. In Carpenter, the court ruled that collecting extensive location data from cell phones constitutes a Fourth Amendment search that requires a warrant.

The author critiques Justice Thomas's dissent in Carpenter, arguing for a broader understanding of privacy rights that transcends mere physical intrusion, emphasizing the historical common law protections against eavesdropping as part of privacy rights. The main conclusion stresses that contemporary legal questions about privacy should not revert to the narrow interpretations exemplified by previous decisions but should recognize the evolving nature of surveillance and privacy in a modern context.

Language:

Export as PDF

Export as PDF
Here are five key points from the video discussing the Fourth Amendment and electronic surveillance:

1. **Need for a Warrant**: The process for obtaining an electronic surveillance order (like intercepting phone calls or accessing emails) is extensive and requires approval from the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., as established under statutory authority from Congress. A warrant is necessary due to a Supreme Court ruling in the Katz case, which expanded the definition of searches and seizures to include electronic surveillance.

2. **Katz Case and Privacy Expectations**: The Katz v. United States case determined that the Fourth Amendment protects individuals' rights to reasonable expectations of privacy, not just against physical intrusions. This case has shaped contemporary interpretations of what constitutes a search or seizure, emphasizing that privacy in communications is paramount.

3. **Historical Convideo and Common Law**: The video discusses the evolution of the Fourth Amendment and its intent to protect individuals from invasive government practices, like general warrants used by British authorities. It argues for a broader interpretation of privacy rights that includes electronic communications, rooted in established common law protections against eavesdropping.

4. **Recent Jurisprudence**: The discussion includes modern cases, such as Carpenter v. United States, which ruled that the extensive collection of location data from cell phones constitutes a Fourth Amendment search, requiring a warrant. This reflects a recognition that the aggregation of public information can violate privacy rights.

5. **Ongoing Debate**: The video highlights an ongoing legal debate among justices regarding the application and scope of the Fourth Amendment concerning electronic surveillance and privacy protections. The argument centers on whether these protections should be confined to physical intrusions or should inherently include various forms of non-physical surveillance that affect individuals' privacy.

Export as PDF
Here are some key quotes from the video:

1. **On the nature of search warrants and electronic surveillance**:
- "The dropping order is a search warrant... that's issued, uh, the intercept phone calls or, uh, extract, uh, the content of emails and video messages."

2. **On the Constitutionality and legal framework**:
- "Um, and all of that's done under statutory authority from Congress."
- "The only reason they need a warrant is because of a Supreme Court case called Katz against the United States."
- "The Fourth Amendment says, uh, the right of the people that these secure in their person's houses, papers, and effects, uh, shall not be violated."

3. **Historical convideo of the Fourth Amendment**:
- "The founders of the Republic adopted that language to make sure that the new federal government could not exercise its revenue powers the way England had exercised its revenue powers with written assistance and general warrants."

4. **On the Katz case and expectations of privacy**:
- "The Court said that searches and seizures includes more than just breaking into houses. It includes interference with reasonable expectations of privacy."
- "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places."

5. **On the evolution of legal interpretation**:
- "There can be searches without physical intrusions... the current jurisprudence... includes examples like the use of a thermal imager."
- "When the government collects a substantial amount of location data from your cell phone provider tracking your movements in public space, that is a Fourth Amendment search that requires a warrant."

6. **On Justice Thomas’ dissent in Carpenter case**:
- "Justice Thomas has a formidable dissent in that case where he says that we should go back to Olmsted... and limit the Fourth Amendment to the protections of the common law ports of trespass and false arrest."

7. **Final thoughts on the legal landscape**:
- "Whatever we do next in the Fourth Amendment area, we shouldn't go back to the Olmsted idea that Justice Thomas is celebrating in his Carpenter dissent."
- "You can't answer those questions simplistically by saying they didn't invade the privacy of the home, they didn't take his property, they didn't arrest his body."

These quotes encapsulate the discussion of electronic surveillance, the historical and legal convideo of the Fourth Amendment, and the ongoing debates regarding privacy rights and judicial interpretations.

Export as PDF
Here are some articles and topics that discuss similar themes related to the Fourth Amendment, electronic surveillance, and privacy rights:

1. **Understanding the Fourth Amendment in the Digital Age**:
- This article explores how the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures apply to modern technologies, including smartphones and the internet.

2. **The Implications of Carpenter v. United States on Privacy Rights**:
- A deep dive into the implications of the Carpenter decision, focusing on how it affects law enforcement's ability to gather data and what it means for individual privacy rights in the convideo of technology.

3. **Balancing National Security and Privacy Rights: The Role of FISA**:
- An analysis of how the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) intersects with the Fourth Amendment, discussing the balance between national security efforts and individual privacy protections.

4. **Katz v. United States: The Evolution of Privacy Expectations**:
- This retrospective looks at the landmark Katz case and its impact on how courts interpret reasonable expectations of privacy, particularly regarding electronic communications.

5. **Eavesdropping Laws and the Protection of Privacy**:
- A discussion on the historical and contemporary laws governing eavesdropping, considering how these laws interface with Fourth Amendment protections in light of technological advancements.

6. **Modern Surveillance Techniques and Their Legal Challenges**:
- An overview of how contemporary surveillance techniques, including data mining and location tracking, challenge the existing legal frameworks established by cases like Kyllo and Carpenter.

7. **The Ongoing Debate: Broad vs. Narrow Interpretation of the Fourth Amendment**:
- This article critiques the arguments for both narrow and broad interpretations of the Fourth Amendment, examining key case law and its implications for privacy in an age of ubiquitous surveillance.

8. **Privacy Implications of Technological Advances: A Legal Perspective**:
- An exploration of how rapid advancements in technology present new challenges for privacy rights and how courts are adapting their interpretations of the law.

These articles should provide a comprehensive overview of the discussions surrounding the Fourth Amendment, electronic surveillance, and the evolving nature of privacy rights in the digital age.

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.000 --> 00:02.485
The dropping order is a, is a search warrant

00:02.545 --> 00:05.205
that's issued, the intercept phone calls

00:05.345 --> 00:07.765
or, extract, the content of emails

00:07.865 --> 00:08.885
and text messages.

00:09.465 --> 00:11.445
Um, and all of that's done under statutory

00:11.445 --> 00:12.805
authority from Congress.

00:13.305 --> 00:15.765
Um, and it's a quite a demanding process to get an,

00:15.865 --> 00:17.525
an electronic surveillance order.

00:18.145 --> 00:20.125
Um, there's a limited number of crimes,

00:20.215 --> 00:22.885
which it can be issued in the federal practice.

00:22.885 --> 00:24.645
That order has to be approved not

00:24.645 --> 00:25.925
by the US Attorney's Office,

00:26.025 --> 00:29.565
but by the main Justice Department in Washington d

00:29.625 --> 00:31.405
and it's a very involved in costly process.

00:31.475 --> 00:33.645
They don't do that unless they're very serious about things.

00:34.305 --> 00:36.765
But the only reason they need a warrant is

00:36.765 --> 00:38.965
because of a Supreme Court case called cats

00:38.965 --> 00:40.085
against the United States.

00:40.825 --> 00:43.165
And in the Katz case, the court said that searches

00:43.305 --> 00:46.125
and seizures includes more than just breaking into houses.

00:46.345 --> 00:47.645
It includes interference

00:47.645 --> 00:49.325
with reasonable expectations of privacy.

00:50.145 --> 00:52.285
Um, and that case has been controversial level.

00:52.425 --> 00:55.785
It was decided, the Fourth Amendment says, the right

00:55.785 --> 00:57.945
of the people that these secure in their person's houses,

00:57.945 --> 01:00.665
papers, and effects, shall not be violated

01:01.125 --> 01:02.545
and that no warrants will issue,

01:02.545 --> 01:05.385
but upon probable cause, particularly describing the places

01:05.525 --> 01:06.585
to be searched and the things,

01:08.175 --> 01:11.555
and the, the founders of the Republic adopted that language

01:11.695 --> 01:15.315
to make sure that the new federal government could not

01:15.755 --> 01:18.875
exercise its revenue powers the way England had exercised

01:18.935 --> 01:20.915
its revenue powers with written assistance

01:20.915 --> 01:21.915
and general warrants.

01:22.635 --> 01:27.005
Um, and so, so the language came out of turn

01:27.005 --> 01:29.645
with general warrants and general warrants were bad

01:29.645 --> 01:33.565
because if the, customs inspectors broke into your house

01:34.555 --> 01:35.645
with a general warrant,

01:35.715 --> 01:38.205
they had immunity from any subsequent tort.

01:38.545 --> 01:41.445
It was basically a license to break into houses,

01:41.665 --> 01:44.765
and it wasn't restricted, to any particular location

01:44.865 --> 01:46.005
or any particular time.

01:46.065 --> 01:49.165
And it didn't require any particular antecedent suspicion.

01:50.215 --> 01:52.595
The debate has always been about whether the Fourth

01:52.595 --> 01:56.275
Amendment is limited to those kinds of immunized,

01:56.795 --> 01:58.995
physical intrusions into private premises,

01:59.825 --> 02:02.205
or whether it extends more broadly.

02:03.185 --> 02:05.885
Um, and, the, the fulcrum for that,

02:06.385 --> 02:08.445
debate was eavesdropping, as you say.

02:09.145 --> 02:12.365
Um, it came up in some prior cases involving telegrams

02:12.625 --> 02:14.685
and, warrants for papers and so forth.

02:14.705 --> 02:18.405
But, but it, it's, its fulcrum was, wired down.

02:19.625 --> 02:23.165
And in, the Olmsted case, back in the 1920s.

02:23.505 --> 02:25.685
Uh, Ben was a bootlegger.

02:25.685 --> 02:27.805
And, the government had the agents,

02:28.445 --> 02:30.725
prohibition agents had listened in on his conversations,

02:32.165 --> 02:35.325
and, and he tried to have those conversations excluded from

02:35.525 --> 02:38.445
evidence as the result of an illegal search.

02:39.375 --> 02:40.795
And the court was closely divided,

02:40.895 --> 02:42.755
and it included some of the most illustrious

02:42.995 --> 02:44.195
justices to ever serve.

02:44.255 --> 02:46.915
It was Chief Justice Tafta wrote the majority opinion.

02:46.935 --> 02:48.755
He had been president of the United States

02:48.895 --> 02:50.715
and Speaker of the House of Representatives.

02:50.715 --> 02:52.435
Nobody knew more about American government.

02:52.575 --> 02:57.275
He, the dis included Oliver Wendell Holmes and Brandeis.

02:57.455 --> 03:00.365
Um, again, that All Star

03:00.585 --> 03:03.645
and the majority saw it as a, involving no search or seizure

03:03.645 --> 03:05.565
because there was no physical intrusion.

03:05.665 --> 03:08.205
And to the extent that there had been a physical intrusion,

03:08.205 --> 03:10.405
it had been to the wires of the telephone company,

03:10.705 --> 03:11.765
not to olmsteds.

03:13.155 --> 03:15.495
Uh, but the dissenters, took the view

03:15.925 --> 03:18.695
that the purpose of the Fourth Amendment fresh

03:18.755 --> 03:22.255
beyond abuses, which gave at birth that those, the purpose

03:22.255 --> 03:25.015
of the amendment was to protect, privacy.

03:25.315 --> 03:27.815
At least that was the Brandeis, dissent, the most famous

03:27.995 --> 03:29.455
of, of the dissenting opinions.

03:29.955 --> 03:31.735
Uh, and it was, he, he didn't say,

03:31.735 --> 03:33.255
we're gonna make it up as, as we go along.

03:33.255 --> 03:35.975
He said that, the makers of our constitution,

03:36.035 --> 03:38.935
the founders, had recognized that,

03:38.935 --> 03:41.135
human life involves more than material things,

03:41.235 --> 03:43.935
and they wanted to protect the privacy of the home,

03:43.955 --> 03:45.855
the sanctity of the human mind and so forth.

03:46.475 --> 03:48.935
Uh, and he grew out of that, what he,

03:48.935 --> 03:50.815
but he said that he said, he said the founders wanted

03:50.815 --> 03:52.895
to protect, the right to be,

03:52.955 --> 03:55.095
let alone the most comprehensive of rights

03:55.095 --> 03:57.095
and the rightmost valued by civil rights mean.

03:57.695 --> 04:00.315
And so the debate has gone on since then with one group

04:00.315 --> 04:02.595
of justices saying, we should limit the Fourth Amendment

04:02.775 --> 04:06.955
to the kinds of physical intrusions into private property

04:07.065 --> 04:08.115
that gave it birth.

04:08.575 --> 04:10.315
And another group of justices who say

04:10.625 --> 04:13.835
that we should expand it, to cover it's,

04:14.255 --> 04:17.755
we should expand it, it's reached to cover the cases

04:17.805 --> 04:19.435
where its purposes are implicated,

04:19.435 --> 04:21.275
even if there's no physical intrusion.

04:21.655 --> 04:24.395
Uh, and the Brandeis opinion prevailed in the Katz case

04:24.405 --> 04:28.275
about 30 years later, 19 6 7, where, the court,

04:28.275 --> 04:30.995
says, the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.

04:31.975 --> 04:35.115
Uh, and if it does an intrusion on a reasonable expectation

04:35.115 --> 04:38.875
of privacy, then, government needs to warrant

04:38.875 --> 04:40.315
because it's a fourth Amendment.

04:40.655 --> 04:43.225
That's the kind of the debate.

04:43.805 --> 04:47.705
So the, current jurisprudence, the law is that,

04:47.705 --> 04:50.065
there can be searches without physical intrusions.

04:50.645 --> 04:53.505
Um, so for instance, following the Katz case,

04:53.525 --> 04:57.185
in a case called Kylo against the United States, the,

04:57.445 --> 05:01.545
the court held that, when the government agents used a,

05:02.145 --> 05:04.265
a thermal imager, which is a device

05:04.265 --> 05:08.025
that measures heat sources emanating from the house,

05:08.025 --> 05:12.065
and shows particularly, intense concentrations of heat

05:12.535 --> 05:16.225
with the, drug enforcement people interpret, interpreted

05:16.225 --> 05:18.385
as a sign of, of grow lights being used

05:18.405 --> 05:21.145
to grow marijuana plants indoors out of sight.

05:21.685 --> 05:23.545
Um, that was assert

05:23.545 --> 05:25.425
because it showed you something inside the home

05:25.895 --> 05:28.265
that you couldn't have gotten to in,

05:28.545 --> 05:30.905
1791 when the Fourth Amendment opted,

05:31.295 --> 05:33.425
gave you information about the interior of the house

05:33.425 --> 05:36.625
that you would've had to break into, to get,

05:36.685 --> 05:38.545
at the founding, of the Republic.

05:39.285 --> 05:40.465
Um,

05:40.565 --> 05:43.225
and so, the most recent iteration of this,

05:43.615 --> 05:46.585
jurisprudence is the carpenter case, 2018,

05:47.275 --> 05:50.545
where the majority five to four, including some justices

05:50.545 --> 05:54.185
who are no longer on the court, held that,

05:54.185 --> 05:56.865
when the government collects a substantial amount of

05:57.205 --> 05:59.325
Location data from your cell phone provider

06:00.285 --> 06:02.845
tracking your movements in public space, that

06:02.845 --> 06:05.765
that is a Fourth Amendment search that requires a warrant.

06:06.385 --> 06:09.285
Uh, and so there you have a situation where,

06:09.475 --> 06:11.125
what happened was that the cell phone records

06:11.965 --> 06:14.765
aggregated the location data of a person in public,

06:14.865 --> 06:16.965
and you don't have a reasonable expectation

06:16.965 --> 06:19.005
of privacy in your appearance in public.

06:19.265 --> 06:23.365
But when the government is able to, trace every step

06:23.365 --> 06:27.125
that you take for a week, a month, a year,

06:27.155 --> 06:30.685
that aggregation of public information becomes troublesome.

06:31.185 --> 06:33.405
Uh, and the court said that it becomes so troublesome

06:33.405 --> 06:35.805
that amounts to intrusion on a reasonable expectation

06:35.805 --> 06:37.325
of privacy and require warrant.

06:37.635 --> 06:40.645
There's an additional layer there, which is that the,

06:41.355 --> 06:44.495
the actual, demand for the information didn't go

06:44.495 --> 06:47.175
to the defendant and carpenter it went to the, it, it,

06:47.175 --> 06:48.935
it went to the cell phone provider, Verizon.

06:49.765 --> 06:53.185
Uh, now Justice Thomas has a formidable dissent in that case

06:53.185 --> 06:55.785
where he says that we should go back to homestead and,

06:56.205 --> 06:58.745
and, limit, the, fourth amendment

06:58.845 --> 07:01.065
to the protections of the common law ports

07:01.065 --> 07:02.505
of trespass and false arrest.

07:03.165 --> 07:05.385
And, and the value added of, of this latest paper,

07:05.385 --> 07:07.825
of mine is to say the common law protected the interior

07:07.845 --> 07:11.065
of the home from things other than physical intrusion.

07:11.065 --> 07:13.825
They had the, the public nuisance of eavesdropping,

07:14.385 --> 07:17.215
which was a crime, not a serious one, but a crime.

07:18.085 --> 07:21.665
And, anyone in the community could seek an indictment

07:21.665 --> 07:22.865
against an eavesdropper.

07:23.485 --> 07:25.705
Uh, but you had to prove multiple instances

07:25.705 --> 07:28.545
of eavesdropping had to be a common eavesdropper.

07:29.245 --> 07:31.545
Uh, and then the remedy wasn't damages.

07:31.545 --> 07:34.305
The remedy was that the eavesdropper would be put

07:34.305 --> 07:35.705
under a sort of a bond.

07:35.765 --> 07:38.785
He had to find assurities to put up a bond to make sure

07:38.785 --> 07:40.545
that he wouldn't be eavesdropping again.

07:41.165 --> 07:43.065
Um, so it was a very different kind

07:43.065 --> 07:45.265
of proceeding than those port actions,

07:45.285 --> 07:47.665
for intrusion into my physical space,

07:47.685 --> 07:50.065
and I want money for it here.

07:50.365 --> 07:53.265
It was protecting, the privacy of communications

07:53.885 --> 07:56.465
in the interior of the home with a preventive

07:56.465 --> 07:58.385
and prospective remedy that was available

07:58.485 --> 07:59.905
to everybody in the community.

08:00.485 --> 08:02.305
And that was a fixed part of the common law.

08:02.305 --> 08:04.665
So I think Justice Thomas is being,

08:04.695 --> 08:07.945
he's taking too narrow a view of the protections of the home

08:07.945 --> 08:09.225
that the common law provided,

08:09.685 --> 08:11.905
and its common law doctrine of eavesdropping,

08:11.905 --> 08:13.105
like I said, was well established

08:13.105 --> 08:15.025
and was understood to be a protection of the home,

08:15.135 --> 08:17.945
just like laws against burglary and arson

08:18.045 --> 08:19.745
and courts like trespass.

08:20.005 --> 08:23.065
The, the main conclusion is a negative one, that,

08:23.905 --> 08:25.985
whatever we do next in the Fourth Amendment area,

08:26.085 --> 08:28.345
we shouldn't go back to the Olmsted idea

08:28.345 --> 08:30.705
that Justice Thomas is celebrating in his,

08:31.245 --> 08:32.425
carpenter dissent.

08:32.425 --> 08:34.105
There, there, there never was a period

08:34.105 --> 08:37.225
of time when the protections, for the privacy

08:37.365 --> 08:40.025
of the home were limited to laws against physical inclusion.

08:40.725 --> 08:44.475
Um, now what you do with that in the modern world

08:44.475 --> 08:48.035
where our cases are things like,

08:48.145 --> 08:50.155
pole camera surveillance of the home,

08:50.215 --> 08:54.795
but from the outside for six months or a year at a time, or

08:55.145 --> 08:58.735
Where it's aggregation of license plate,

08:59.215 --> 09:02.895
GPS date timestamps, which are automatically collected

09:02.895 --> 09:05.215
and put into a database with billions of hits

09:05.215 --> 09:06.815
that they can search by the license plate

09:06.815 --> 09:07.935
number or the location.

09:09.185 --> 09:11.285
How you, how you apply that is a different question.

09:11.305 --> 09:14.605
But I think the takeaway from my paper is

09:14.605 --> 09:17.085
that you can't answer those questions simplistically

09:17.105 --> 09:20.245
by saying they didn't invade the privacy of the home,

09:20.245 --> 09:22.885
they didn't take his property, they didn't arrest his body.

09:23.385 --> 09:25.445
You can't answer those questions, and that's simplistic.

Electronic Surveillance and Privacy Debates

00:00:00 - The dropping order is a, is a search warrant that's issued, the intercept phone calls or, extract, the content of emails and text messages. and all of that's done under statutory authority from Congress. and it's a quite a demanding process to get an, an electronic surveillance order. there's a limited number of crimes, which it can be issued in the federal practice. That order has to be approved not by the US Attorney's Office, but by the main Justice Department in Washington d and it's a very involved in costly process. They don't do that unless they're very serious about things.
00:00:36 - because of a Supreme Court case called cats against the United States. And in the Katz case, the court said that searches and seizures includes more than just breaking into houses. It includes interference with reasonable expectations of privacy. and that case has been controversial level. It was decided, the Fourth Amendment says, the right of the people that these secure in their person's houses, papers, and effects, shall not be violated and that no warrants will issue, but upon probable cause, particularly describing the places
00:01:08 - and the, the founders of the Republic adopted that language to make sure that the new federal government could not exercise its revenue powers the way England had exercised its revenue powers with written assistance and general warrants. and so, so the language came out of turn with general warrants and general warrants were bad because if the, customs inspectors broke into your house with a general warrant,
00:01:38 - It was basically a license to break into houses, and it wasn't restricted, to any particular location or any particular time. And it didn't require any particular antecedent suspicion. The debate has always been about whether the Fourth Amendment is limited to those kinds of immunized, physical intrusions into private premises, or whether it extends more broadly. and, the, the fulcrum for that,
00:02:09 - it came up in some prior cases involving telegrams and, warrants for papers and so forth. But, but it, it's, its fulcrum was, wired down. And in, the Olmsted case, back in the 1920s. Ben was a bootlegger. And, the government had the agents, prohibition agents had listened in on his conversations, and, and he tried to have those conversations excluded from evidence as the result of an illegal search.
00:02:40 - and it included some of the most illustrious justices to ever serve. It was Chief Justice Tafta wrote the majority opinion. He had been president of the United States and Speaker of the House of Representatives. Nobody knew more about American government. He, the dis included Oliver Wendell Holmes and Brandeis. again, that All Star and the majority saw it as a, involving no search or seizure because there was no physical intrusion. And to the extent that there had been a physical intrusion, it had been to the wires of the telephone company,

Debate on Fourth Amendment Privacy Protections

00:03:13 - but the dissenters, took the view that the purpose of the Fourth Amendment fresh beyond abuses, which gave at birth that those, the purpose of the amendment was to protect, privacy. At least that was the Brandeis, dissent, the most famous of, of the dissenting opinions. and it was, he, he didn't say, we're gonna make it up as, as we go along. He said that, the makers of our constitution, the founders, had recognized that, human life involves more than material things,
00:03:43 - the sanctity of the human mind and so forth. and he grew out of that, what he, but he said that he said, he said the founders wanted to protect, the right to be, let alone the most comprehensive of rights and the rightmost valued by civil rights mean. And so the debate has gone on since then with one group of justices saying, we should limit the Fourth Amendment to the kinds of physical intrusions into private property that gave it birth. And another group of justices who say that we should expand it, to cover it's,
00:04:17 - where its purposes are implicated, even if there's no physical intrusion. and the Brandeis opinion prevailed in the Katz case about 30 years later, 19 6 7, where, the court, says, the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. and if it does an intrusion on a reasonable expectation of privacy, then, government needs to warrant because it's a fourth Amendment. That's the kind of the debate. So the, current jurisprudence, the law is that,
00:04:50 - so for instance, following the Katz case, in a case called Kylo against the United States, the, the court held that, when the government agents used a, a thermal imager, which is a device that measures heat sources emanating from the house, and shows particularly, intense concentrations of heat with the, drug enforcement people interpret, interpreted as a sign of, of grow lights being used
00:05:21 - that was assert because it showed you something inside the home that you couldn't have gotten to in, 1791 when the Fourth Amendment opted, gave you information about the interior of the house that you would've had to break into, to get, at the founding, of the Republic. and so, the most recent iteration of this, jurisprudence is the carpenter case, 2018, where the majority five to four, including some justices
00:05:54 - when the government collects a substantial amount of Location data from your cell phone provider tracking your movements in public space, that that is a Fourth Amendment search that requires a warrant. and so there you have a situation where, what happened was that the cell phone records aggregated the location data of a person in public, and you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your appearance in public. But when the government is able to, trace every step

Privacy Intrusion and the Fourth Amendment Debate

00:06:27 - that aggregation of public information becomes troublesome. and the court said that it becomes so troublesome that amounts to intrusion on a reasonable expectation of privacy and require warrant. There's an additional layer there, which is that the, the actual, demand for the information didn't go to the defendant and carpenter it went to the, it, it, it went to the cell phone provider, Verizon. now Justice Thomas has a formidable dissent in that case where he says that we should go back to homestead and,
00:06:58 - to the protections of the common law ports of trespass and false arrest. And, and the value added of, of this latest paper, of mine is to say the common law protected the interior of the home from things other than physical intrusion. They had the, the public nuisance of eavesdropping, which was a crime, not a serious one, but a crime. And, anyone in the community could seek an indictment against an eavesdropper. but you had to prove multiple instances of eavesdropping had to be a common eavesdropper.
00:07:31 - The remedy was that the eavesdropper would be put under a sort of a bond. He had to find assurities to put up a bond to make sure that he wouldn't be eavesdropping again. so it was a very different kind of proceeding than those port actions, for intrusion into my physical space, and I want money for it here. It was protecting, the privacy of communications in the interior of the home with a preventive and prospective remedy that was available to everybody in the community.
00:08:02 - So I think Justice Thomas is being, he's taking too narrow a view of the protections of the home that the common law provided, and its common law doctrine of eavesdropping, like I said, was well established and was understood to be a protection of the home, just like laws against burglary and arson and courts like trespass. The, the main conclusion is a negative one, that, whatever we do next in the Fourth Amendment area, we shouldn't go back to the Olmsted idea that Justice Thomas is celebrating in his,
00:08:32 - There, there, there never was a period of time when the protections, for the privacy of the home were limited to laws against physical inclusion. now what you do with that in the modern world where our cases are things like, pole camera surveillance of the home, but from the outside for six months or a year at a time, or Where it's aggregation of license plate, GPS date timestamps, which are automatically collected
00:09:23 - that they can search by the license plate number or the location. How you, how you apply that is a different question. But I think the takeaway from my paper is that you can't answer those questions simplistically by saying they didn't invade the privacy of the home, they didn't take his property, they didn't arrest his body. You can't answer those questions, and that's simplistic.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Faculti

Popular in Law

Human Rights and Corruption: Problems and Potential of Individualising a Systemic Problem

A statistical approach to law school citation rankings

What is constitutional ideology?

Politics, Identity, and Class Certification on the U.S. Courts of Appeals

The Law of AI for Good

Transforming Restorative Justice for Transitional Settings

Eavesdropping, the Fourth Amendment, and the Common Law

Next in Human Rights Law

Guide

Platform and Category Pages

Contact Us

FAQs

What is Faculti?

How do you select interviews?

Interview Process

Page Structure

Popular in Law

Guide

Platform and Category Pages

Contact Us

FAQs

What is Faculti?

How do you select interviews?

Interview Process

Accessibility Options

Contrast Adjustment

Text Size Adjustment

Text Spacing Adjustment

Line Height Adjustment

Cursor Size Adjustment

Page Structure Options

Page Structure