1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Criminology
  4. Volume 6, 2023
  5. Article

Annual Review of Criminology

Volume 6, 2023

Surveillance Technologies and Constitutional Law

Abstract

This review focuses on government use of technology to observe, collect, or record potential criminal activity in real-time, as contrasted with “transaction surveillance” that involves government efforts to access already-existing records and exploit Big Data, topics that have been the focus of previous reviews (Brayne 2018, Ridgeway 2018). Even so limited, surveillance technologies come in many guises, including closed-circuit television, automated license plate and facial readers, aerial cameras, and GPS tracking. Also classifiable as surveillance technology are devices such as thermal and electromagnetic imagers that can “see” through walls and clothing. Finally, surveillance includes wiretapping and other forms of communication interception. The following discussion briefly examines the limited evidence we have about the prevalence and effectiveness of these technologies and then describes the law governing surveillance, focusing principally on constitutional doctrine, and how it might—and might not—limit use of these technologies in the future.

Keyword(s): constitutional law, crime, Fourth Amendment, search, surveillance, technology
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-030421-035102
2023-01-27
2024-05-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/criminol/6/1/annurev-criminol-030421-035102.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-030421-035102&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Adams I, Mastracci S. 2019. Police body-worn cameras: effects on officers’ burnout and perceived organizational support. Police Q 22:15–30
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ashby M. 2017. The value of CCTV surveillance cameras as an investigative tool: an empirical analysis. Eur. J. Crim. Policy Res. 23:3441–59
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Atlas Surveill 2021. Documenting police tech in our communities with open source research. Electronic Frontier Foundation https://atlasofsurveillance.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Benway C. 2018. You can run, but you can't hide: law enforcement's use of Stingray cell phone trackers and the Fourth Amendment. South. Ill. Univ. Law J. 42:261–95
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 1967.)
  6. Biale N. 2008. Expert findings on surveillance cameras: what criminologists and others studying cameras have found White Pap., ACLU New York: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/images/asset_upload_file708_35775.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bloch-Wehba H. 2021. Visible policing: technology, transparency, and democratic control. Calif. Law Rev. 109:917–78
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Brayne S. 2018. The criminal law and law enforcement implications of big data. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 14:293–308
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Brayne S. 2021. Predict and Surveil: Data, Discretion, and the Future of Policing New York: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Brennan-Marquez K. 2018. The constitutional limits of private surveillance. Univ. Kans. Law Rev. 66:485–521
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Burke G, Mendoza M, Linderman J, Tarm M. 2021. How AI-powered tech landed man in jail with scant evidence. Associated Press Aug. 19. https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-algorithm-technology-police-crime-7e3345485aa668c97606d4b54f9b6220
    [Google Scholar]
  12. California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207211 1986.)
  13. Cameron A, Kolodinski E, May H, Williams N 2008. Measuring the effect of video surveillance on crime in Los Angeles Rep., USC School Policy Plann. Dev., Los Angeles. https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/default/files/210-Cameron.pdf
  14. Carpenter v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 2206 2018.)
  15. Coupe T, Kaur S. 2005. The role of alarms and CCTV in detecting non-residential burglary. Secur. J. 18:253–72
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Crump C. 2016. Surveillance policymaking by procurement. Wash. Law Rev. 91:41595–662
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical Co., 509 U.S. 579 1993.)
  18. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 664 1979.)
  19. Dixon HB. 2020. Your cell phone is a spy. American Bar Association July 29. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/judicial/publications/judges_journal/2020/summer/your-cell-phone-a-spy/
    [Google Scholar]
  20. DJI 2018. ZenMuse XT. DJI. https://www.dji.com/zenmuse-xt
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 594 1981.)
  22. Dow Chemical v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 1986.)
  23. Doucette ML, Green C, Dineen JN, Shapiro D, Raissian KM. 2021. Impact of ShotSpotter technology on firearm homicides and arrests among large metropolitan counties: a longitudinal analysis, 1999–2016. J. Urban Health 98:5609–21
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Drange M. 2016. We're spending millions on this high-tech system designed to reduce gun violence. Is it making a difference?. Forbes Novemb. 17. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdrange/2016/11/17/shotspotter-struggles-to-prove-impact-as-silicon-valley-answer-to-gun-violence/?sh=35f90abd31cb
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Farivar C. 2020. Cute videos, but little evidence: Police say Amazon Ring isn't much of a crime fighter. NBC News Febr. 15. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/cute-videos-little-evidence-police-say-amazon-ring-isn-t-n1136026
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Fasman J. 2021. We See It All New York: Hachette
  27. Feathers T. 2021. Police are telling ShotSpotter to alter evidence from gunshot-detecting AI. Vice July 26. https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj8xbq/police-are-telling-shotspotter-to-alter-evidence-from-gunshot-detecting-ai
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Ferguson A 2017. Big data surveillance: the convergence of big data and law enforcement. Cambridge Handbook of Surveillance Law DC Gray, SE Henderson, CJ Hoofnagle 171–97 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Fight Future 2021. Interactive map. Ban Facial Recognition Oct. 22. https://www.banfacialrecognition.com/map/
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Flemming C. 2019. Remote drone dispatch: law enforcement's future?. Police Chief https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/remote-drone-dispatch/
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 2013.)
  32. Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 2013.)
  33. Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 1989.)
  34. Foltz v. Commonwealth, 698 S.E.2d 281 283–84 Va. Ct. App 2010.)
  35. Garvie C. 2019. Garbage in, garbage out: face recognition on flawed data. Georgetown Law Center Privacy & Technology May 16. https://www.flawedfacedata.com/
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Garvie C, Bedoya AM, Frankle J. 2016. The perpetual line-up: unregulated police face recognition in America. Georgetown Law Center Privacy & Technology Oct. 18. https://www.perpetuallineup.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Gerell M. 2016. Hot spot policing with actively monitored CCTV cameras: Does it reduce assaults in public places?. Int. Crim. J. Rev. 26:2187–201
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Gettinger D. 2020. Public safety drones, 3rd edition. Rep., Cent. Stud. Drone Bard Coll., Annandale-On-Hudson, NY https://dronecenter.bard.edu/files/2020/04/CSD-Public-Safety-Drones-3rd-edition.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Gill M, Spriggs A, Allen J, Argomaniz J, Bryan J et al. 2015. The impact of CCTV: fourteen case studies Rep., UK Home Off. London: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Javier-Argomaniz/publication/237586638_The_impact_of_CCTV_fourteen_case_studies/links/0c9605203ac7eaa6b0000000/The-impact-of-CCTV-fourteen-case-studies.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129 1942.)
  41. Gov. Account. Off. (GAO) 2021. Facial recognition technology: federal law enforcement agencies should have better awareness of systems use. GAO July 13. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-105309
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Haskins C, Mac R, McDonald L. 2020. The ACLU slammed a facial recognition company that scrapes photos from Instagram and Facebook. BuzzFeedNews Febr. 10. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolinehaskins1/clearview-ai-facial-recognition-accurate-aclu-absurd
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 2009.)
  44. Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 457 1924.)
  45. Hill K. 2020. The secretive company that might end privacy as we know it. New York Times Jan. 18. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/technology/clearview-privacy-facial-recognition.html
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Hill K. 2021. Your face is not your own. New York Times March 18. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/18/magazine/facial-recognition-clearview-ai.html
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 1966.)
  48. Holst A. 2021. Amount of data created, consumed, and stored 2010–2025. Statista June 7. https://www.statista.com/statistics/871513/worldwide-data-created/
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Hu M. 2015. Small data surveillance v. big data cybersurveillance. Pepperdine Law Rev. 42:773–843
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Hubbard B. 2008. Police turn to secret weapon. Washington Post Aug. 13, p. A1
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 2005.)
  52. Illinois v. Williams, 20 CR 0899601 2021. https://endpolicesurveillance.com/documents/2021-05-03-Motion-for-Leave-to-File-Brief-as-Amici-Curiae-with-Ex.-A-Amicus-Brief-attached.pdf
  53. Isikoff M. 2010. A snitch in your pocket. TRUTHOUT Febr. 21. https://truthout.org/articles/a-snitch-in-your-pocket/
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 1967.)
  55. King J, Mulligan D, Raphael S, Richardson T, Sekhon J. 2008. Preliminary findings of the statistical evaluation of the crime-deterrent effects of the San Francisco Crime Camera Program Rep., UC Berkeley Cent. Inf. Technol. Res. Interest Soc. Berkeley, CA: https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/asset_upload_file796_7024.pdf
  56. Knight W. 2021. Clearview AI has new tools to identify you in photos. Wired Oct. 4. https://www.wired.com/story/clearview-ai-new-tools-identify-you-photos/
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Koepke L, Weil E, Janardan U, Dada T, Yu H 2020. Mass extraction: the widespread power of U.S. law enforcement to search mobile phones Rep., Upturn Washington, DC: https://www.upturn.org/static/reports/2020/mass-extraction/files/Upturn%20-%20Mass%20Extraction.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 2001.)
  59. Landau S. 2011. Surveillance or Security? The Risks Posed by New Wiretapping Technologies Boston: MIT Press
  60. Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department, 2 F.4th 330 (4th Cir. 2021.)
  61. Lee D. 2021. US police and fire departments partnering with Amazon's Ring passes 2,000. Financial Times Jan. 29. https://www.ft.com/content/61968b3b-c093-4c4a-a7b7-29b565bc0bc0
    [Google Scholar]
  62. LEMAS 2016. Law enforcement management and administrative Statistics (LEMAS). Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/data-collection/law-enforcement-management-and-administrative-statistics-lemas
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Lum C, Koper CS. 2017. Evidence-Based Policing: Translating Research into Practice Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Lum C, Koper CS, Willis J, Happeny S, Vovak H, Nichols J. 2019. The rapid diffusion of license plate readers in US law enforcement agencies Rep. NCJ 254772, Natl. Inst. Justice Washington, DC: https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/rapid-diffusion-license-plate-readers-us-law-enforcement-agencies
  65. Lum C, Koper CS. 2019. The impacts of large-scale license plate reader deployment on criminal investigations. Police Q. 22:3305–29
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Lyons K. 2021. Amazon's Ring now reportedly partners with more than 2,000 US police and fire departments. The Verge Jan. 31. https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/31/22258856/amazon-ring-partners-police-fire-security-privacy-cameras
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Mac R, Haskins C, McDonald L. 2020. Clearview's facial recognition app has been used by the Justice Department, ICE, Macy's, Walmart, and the NBA. BuzzFeedNews Febr. 27. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/clearview-ai-fbi-ice-global-law-enforcement
    [Google Scholar]
  68. MacArthur Justice Center 2021. ShotSpotter generated over 40,000 dead-end police deployments in Chicago in 21 months, according to new study Press Release, May 3. https://www.macarthurjustice.org/shotspotter-generated-over-40000-dead-end-police-deployments-in-chicago-in-21-months-according-to-new-study/
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Majoras DP, Swindle O, Leary TB, Harbour PJ, Leibowitz J 2005. RFID Radio frequency identification: applications and implications for consumers Rep., FTC Washington, DC: https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/rfid-radio-frequency-identification-applications-and-implications-consumers-workshop-report-staff/050308rfidrpt.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Mares D, Blackburn E. 2020. Acoustic gunshot detection systems: a quasi-experimental evaluation in St. Louis, MO. J. Exp. Crim. 17:2193–215
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Marshall EW, Groscup JL, Brank EM, Perez A, Hoetger LA. 2019. Police surveillance of cell phone location data: Supreme Court versus public opinion. Behav. Sci. Law 37:751–75
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Martinez T. 2015. Enhancing community policing through GPS tracking technology. Commun. Polic. Dispatch 8:5 https://cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/05-2015/enhancing_cp_through_gps.asp#:∼:text=5%20%7C%20May%202015-,Enhancing%20Community%20Policing%20Through%20GPS%20Tracking%20Technology,crime%20trends%20and%20apprehend%20criminals
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 2013.)
  74. McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451 1948.)
  75. Miller v. United States, 425 U.S. 435 1976.)
  76. MTAS Res. Inf. Cent 2016. Is there empirical evidence that surveillance cameras reduce crime? Rep., MTAS Res. Inf. Cent. Knoxville, TN: https://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/system/files/knowledgebase/original/Surveillance%20camera%20research%20brief%208_2016.pdf
  77. NASA v. Nelson, 562 U.S 134 2011.)
  78. Natl. Inst. Justice (NIJ) 2017. Case study of a GPS tracking tool designed to aid in police vehicle pursuits. National Institute of Justice July 11. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/case-study-gps-tracking-tool-designed-aid-police-vehicle-pursuits
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. (NIST) 2019. NIST study evaluates effects of race, age, sex on face recognition software. NIST Dec. 19. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2019/12/nist-study-evaluates-effects-race-age-sex-face-recognition-software
    [Google Scholar]
  80. New Jersey v. T.L.O, 469 U.S. 325 1985.)
  81. Ohlheiser A. 2014. The controversial GPS device that helped police catch Carlesha Freeland-Gaither's alleged abductor. Washington Post Novemb. 7. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/11/06/the-controversial-gps-device-that-helped-officials-catch-an-alleged-philadelphia-abductor/
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Ohm P. 2012. The Fourth Amendment in a world without privacy. Miss. Law J. 81:1309–54
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Oliver M, Kugler MB. 2021. Surveying surveillance: a national study of police department surveillance technologies SSRN Work. Pap. 3911442. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3911442
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  84. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 432 1928.)
  85. Polic. Proj 2021. Measuring the effects of ShotSpotter on gunfire in St. Louis County, MO Rep., Polic. Proj. New York: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58a33e881b631bc60d4f8b31/t/603923e3a32c3f57d67dabec/1614357476874/Measuring+the+Effects+of+Shotspotter+on+Gunfire+in+St.+Louis+County%2C+MO.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Potts J. 2018. Research in brief: assessing the effectiveness of automatic license plate readers. Police Chief http://theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/March%202018%20RIB.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  87. PowerDMS 2020. Law enforcement drone policy. PowerDMS by NEOGOV https://www.powerdms.com/policy-learning-center/law-enforcement-drone-policy
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Prince H, Lum C, Koper CS. 2021. Effective police investigative practices: an evidence-based assessment of the research. Polic. Int. J. 44:4683–707
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Riley v. California, 473 S.Ct. 373 2014.)
  90. Riley L. 1997. Concealed weapon detectors and the Fourth Amendment: the constitutionality of remote sense-enhanced searches. UCLA Law Rev 45:281–336
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Robin L, Peterson BE, Sherman DS. 2020. How do close-circuit television cameras impact crimes and clearances? An evaluation of the Milwaukee Police Department's public surveillance system. Police Pract. Res. 22:21171–90
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Rosenthal L. 2014. Binary searches and the central meaning of the Fourth Amendment. William Mary Civ. Rights Law Rev. 22:881–940
     [Google Scholar]
  93. SEC 2020. Form 10-K: ShotSpotter, Inc. United States Securities and Exchange Commission. https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1351636/000156459021016134/ssti-10k_20201231.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Seifert JW. 2007. Data mining and homeland security: an overview Rep., Congr. Res. Serv. Washington, DC: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/intel/RL31798.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Shah R, Braithwaite J 2013. Spread too thin: analyzing the effectiveness of the Chicago camera network on crime. . Polic. Pract. Res. 14:415–27
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 1961.)
  97. Simonite T. 2018. Photo algorithms identify white men fine—black women, not so much. Wired Febr. 6. https://www.wired.com/story/photo-algorithms-id-white-men-fineblack-women-not-so-much/
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Skinner v. Railway Labor Execs. Labor Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602 614 1989.)
  99. Slobogin C. 2007. Privacy at Risk: The New Government Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Slobogin C. 2022. Virtual Searches: Regulating the Covert World of Technological Policing Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Snyder BJ. 2020.. “ Big brother's bigger brother”: the visual politics of (counter) surveillance in Baltimore. Sociol. Forum 35:41315–36
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Solove DJ. 2003. Digital dossiers and the dissipation of Fourth Amendment privacy. South. Calif. Law Rev. 75:1083–167
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Smart Solut 2021. Covert weapon detection systems. Smart Solutions. https://smartctsolutions.com/weapon-detectors-public/
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 1979.)
  105. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 1968.)
  106. Thompson SA, Warzel C. 2019. Twelve million phones, one dataset, zero privacy. New York Times Dec. 19. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/19/opinion/location-tracking-cell-phone.html
    [Google Scholar]
  107. United States v. Davis, 754 F.3d 1205 (11th Cir 2014. (No. 12–12928-EE)
  108. United States v. Howard, 426 F.Supp.3d 1247 (M.D. Ala 2019.)
  109. United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 2012.)
  110. United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 1983.)
  111. United States v. Marquez, 605 F3d 604, 607 (8th Cir. 2010.)
  112. United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 425 U.S. 435 1976.)
  113. United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 1983.)
  114. United States v. Tuggle, 4 F.4th 505 (7th Cir. 2021.)
  115. US Courts 2011. Wiretap report 2011. United States Courts. https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/wiretap-report-2011
    [Google Scholar]
  116. US Courts 2020. Wiretap report 2020. United States Courts. https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/wiretap-report-2020
    [Google Scholar]
  117. US Dep. Homel. Secur 2007. CCTV: developing privacy best practices Rep., DHS Washington, DC: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy_rpt_cctv_2007.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Valentino-DeVries J. 2020. How police use facial recognition, and where it falls short. New York Times Jan. 12. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/12/technology/facial-recognition-police.html
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Wasney M. 2017. The shots heard round the city: Are Chicago's new shot detection and predictive policing technologies worth it?. South Side Weekly Dec. 19. https://southsideweekly.com/shots-heard-round-city-shotspotter-chicago-police/
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Wexler R. 2018. Life, liberty, and trade secrets: intellectual property in the criminal justice system. Stanford Law Rev. 70:1343–429
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Welsh B, Farrington D. 2003. Effects of closed-circuit television on crime. Ann. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 587:110–35
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Welsh B, Farrington DP, Taheri SA. 2015. Effectiveness and social costs of public area surveillance for crime prevention. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 11:111–30
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 1977.)
  124. Whittaker Z. 2021. Google says geofence warrants make up one-quarter of all U.S. demands. TechCrunch Aug. 8. https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/19/google-geofence-warrants
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Zetter K. 2020. How cops can secretly track your phone. The Intercept July 31. https://theintercept.com/2020/07/31/protests-surveillance-stingrays-dirtboxes-phone-tracking/
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-030421-035102
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error