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
Trump’s challenge to the Mar-a-Lago search is based largely on Fourth Amendment claims. Those claims are unusual, interesting, ultimately meritless, and likely driven by strategic interests having little to do with constitutional law.
The emerging three-factor Carpenter test should become the primary standard for Fourth Amendment searches, replacing the test that has prevailed for over 50 years.
Courts are split on whether telephone pole camera surveillance of a house violates the Fourth Amendment, and the First Circuit just added to the confusion.
The reasoning of the decision has some major problems.
What’s going on in the RaceDayQuads v. FAA case?
Can governments purchase user records as an end-run around the warrant requirement imposed by Carpenter v. United States?
An analysis of the federal and state judgments applying Carpenter illuminates both the present state of the law and the paths along which it will likely continue to develop.
The Fourth Amendment government agency problem requires platforms to walk a fine—and sometimes untenable—line in searching for private user content that contains child sex abuse material and other illegal material.
An overlooked part of United States v. Moalin could have a major impact on surveillance law.
It’s complicated.