The Fourth Amendment famously protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” As capabilities for government surveillance rapidly develope alongside technology, the amendment has consistently been at the center of discussions over privacy and the scope of state power. In particular, NSA bulk surveillance has recently triggered a debate on the constitutionality of warrantless bulk collection under the Fourth Amendment, and on what should be considered a “reasonable” search in an increasingly digital age.
Latest in Fourth Amendment
Orin Kerr, professor at George Washington University Law School, filed an amicus brief today in support of the respondent in Carpenter vs. U.S. The brief, which may be of interest to Lawfare readers, is available here:
Lawfare has prepared summaries of all of the relevant documents in the DreamHost search warrant controversy.
Yesterday the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Carpenter v. United States, a case with “enormous implications” for the fate of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, specifically the hotly-debated “third-party” doctrine.
The Supreme Court has granted a writ of certiorari in Carpenter v. United States, agreeing to review the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holding that the Fourth Amendment permits the government to permissibly access cell-site records revealing the user's location without a warrant. The case implicates serious ongoing debates over Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and will likely make for a major Supreme Court decision.
An EDPA magistrate judge declines to adopt the Second Circuit's holding in Microsoft regarding tech companies' obligation to comply with search warrants for emails stored overseas.
A review of legal opinions by Judge Neil Gorsuch of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, President Trump's pick to fill the ninth seat on the Supreme Court, on immigration, separation of powers, the Fourth Amendment, administrative law, international law, and foreign affairs.
In a recent post here at Lawfare, April Doss argues that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Mohamud “got it right.” In her view, the critics of the decision—myself included—are just wrong. I disagree. Here’s why I think the reasoning of the decision is hard to defend.
Today, the Department of Defense released revised procedures governing the conduct of its intelligence activities. Lawfare has a rundown of exactly what's new and what it means for DoD intelligence collection moving forward.
Office of the Director of National Intelligence General Counsel Robert Litt has published a new essay in The Yale Law Journal that will likely be of interest to Lawfare readers.
The Ninth Circuit ruled yesterday that an NCIS agent’s search of military and civilian computers for child pornography violated restrictions related to the Posse Comitatus Act.