Do authorities need individualized suspicion before they search travelers’ electronic devices at the border? The Eleventh Circuit says no, creating a circuit split on the question.
Latest in Fourth Amendment
Summary: Fourth Circuit Rejects Suspicionless, Forensic Searches of Devices at the Border in United States v. Kolsuz
Drawing on the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Riley v. California, a recent ruling extends new Fourth Amendment protections to travelers’ electronic devices at the border.
We should turn a critical eye toward the legal claim purportedly undergirding the Nunes memo.
The Best Way to Rule for Carpenter (Or, How to Expand Fourth Amendment Protections Without Making A Mess)
Professor Kerr's thoughts on the best way to establish Fourth Amendment rights in cell-site records.
The answer is probably no. But that's not as obvious as many people seem to think.
Initial reactions to today's oral argument in Carpenter v. United States.
What does the Fourth Amendment protect?
Orin Kerr shares his observations on Carpenter v. United States, a case concerning whether the Fourth Amendment applies to government collection of historical cell-site records.
This fall the Supreme Court will reconsider the Fourth Amendment “third-party doctrine” in Carpenter v. United States; the court’s decision implicate both the reauthorization of FISA Section 702 and international privacy regulation.
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: