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
An overlooked part of United States v. Moalin could have a major impact on surveillance law.
It’s complicated.
With the right safeguards, aggressive disease surveillance is likely permissible under the Fourth Amendment.
The Washington Post reported recently that ICE has accessed a Maryland facial recognition database, which includes photographs of undocumented immigrants who obtained special driver’s licenses.
In a federal prosecution for armed bank robbery, a defendant challenges a geofence warrant.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that incidental collection of U.S. persons’ communications under Section 702 does not violate the Fourth Amendment, but raised constitutional questions related to querying databases containing these communications.
In Commonwealth v. Jones, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held, for the second time in five years, that the government may compel a defendant to unlock an electronic device under certain circumstances.
In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment applies when the government acquires large amounts of cell-phone location data.
Last June in a 5-4 ruling in Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court extended Fourth Amendment protections to an individual’s cell phone location data for the first time.
The Fifth Circuit has handed down a fascinating computer search case in United States v. Reddick. Here's the question: If a private company runs a hash of a file and compares the hash to those of known images of child pornography, and it finds a match to a known image and forwards on the file to the government, is it a “search” for the government to then open the file to confirm it is child pornography?