1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Law and Social Science
  4. Volume 20, 2024
  5. Article

Annual Review of Law and Social Science

Volume 20, 2024

New Technologies in Search and Seizure

Abstract

The Fourth Amendment and court cases interpreting it provide guidelines for how law enforcement should legally approach searching for and taking evidence in criminal investigations. Though it originally applied to physical intrusion by law enforcement, current—and likely future—intrusions are more virtual in nature. Law enforcement officers no longer need to walk onto someone's property to search for criminal activity because various technologies now provide similar or more in-depth information. Technological innovations have stretched the bounds of the Fourth Amendment. Although public opinion cannot answer the policy implications, it can speak to what the public reasonably expects of the police. In general, limited research demonstrates that the public has concerns about the way law enforcement officers can use technology in their investigations, but those concerns are not strong enough to decrease individuals’ technology use.

Keyword(s): Fourth Amendment, search and seizure, technology
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-042022-112215
2024-10-17
2024-12-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/20/1/annurev-lawsocsci-042022-112215.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-042022-112215&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Adjabi I, Ouahabi A, Benzaoui A, Taleb-Ahmed A. 2020.. Past, present, and future of face recognition: a review. . Electronics 9:(8):1188
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bambauer JY. 2012.. How the war on drugs distorts privacy law. . Stanford Law Rev. Online 64::131–38
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bambauer J. 2013.. Defending the dog. . Or. Law Rev. 91:(4):1203–12
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bettany SM, Kerrane B. 2016.. The socio-materiality of parental style: negotiating the multiple affordances of parenting and child welfare within the new child surveillance technology market. . Eur. J. Mark. 50:(11):2041–66
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bloom A. 2023.. Objective enough: Race is relevant to the reasonable person in criminal procedure. . Stanford J. Civ. Rights Civ. Lib. 19:(1):1–49
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Blumenthal JA, Adya M, Mogle J. 2009.. The multiple dimensions of privacy: testing lay “expectations of privacy. .” Univ. Pa. J. Const. Law 11:(2):331–74
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Brank EM, Groscup JL, Marshall E, Hoetger L. 2019.. Sniffer-dog searchers in the United States. . Court Rev. 55:(2):56–61
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Brendlin v. California, 551 US 249 ( 2007.)
  9. California v. Ciraolo, 476 US 207 ( 1986.)
  10. California v. Hodari D., 499 US 621 ( 1991.)
  11. Carpenter C. 2020.. Privacy and proportionality: examining mass electronic surveillance under Article 8 and the Fourth Amendment. . Int. Comp. Law Rev. 20:(1):27–57
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  12. Carpenter v. United States, 585 US __ ( 2018.)
  13. Chao B, Durso C, Farrell I, Robertson C. 2018.. Why courts fail to protect privacy: race, age, bias, and technology. . Calif. Law Rev. 106:(2):263–24
     [Google Scholar]
  14. City of Ontario, Cal. v. Quon et al., 560 US 746 ( 2010.)
  15. C.K. v. D.K., 2022. WL 667061
  16. Cooper J, Burrow S, Pusey H. 2021.. What are the perceptions of people living with dementia, family carers, professionals and other potential stakeholders to the use of global positioning systems to promote safer outdoor walking? A qualitative literature review. . Disabil. Rehabil. 16:(6):614–23
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Cuddihy WJ. 2009.. The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Original Meaning 602-1791. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Day M, Turner G, Drozdiak N. 2019.. Amazon workers are listening to what you tell Alexa. . Bloomberg, April 10. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-10/is-anyone-listening-to-you-on-alexa-a-global-team-reviews-audio
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 US __ ( 2022.)
  20. Donelson R. 2021.. The real problem with Katz circularity. . Saint Louis Univ. Law J. 65::809–22
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Dong Z, Wang L, Xie H, Xu G, Wang H. 2022.. Privacy analysis of period tracking mobile apps in the post-Roev. Wade era. . In Proceedings of the 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 1–6. New York:: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Ferguson AG. 2016.. The internet of things and the Fourth Amendment of effects. . Calif. Law Rev. 104:(4):805–80
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Ferguson AG. 2021.. Facial recognition and the Fourth Amendment. . Minn. Law Rev. 105:(3):1105–210
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Fife E, Orjuela J. 2012.. The privacy calculus: mobile apps and user perceptions of privacy and security. . Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 4::11
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  25. Florida v. Bostick, 501 US 429 ( 1991.)
  26. Florida v. Harris, 568 US 237 ( 2013.)
  27. Florida v. Jardines, 569 US 1 ( 2013.)
  28. Florida v. Riley, 488 US 445 ( 1989.)
  29. Fradella HF, Morrow WJ, Fischer RG, Ireland C. 2010.. Quantifying Katz: empirically measuring reasonable expectations of privacy in the Fourth Amendment context. . Am. J. Crim. Law 38:(3):289–374
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Fretty DA. 2011.. Face-recognition surveillance: a moment of truth for Fourth Amendment rights in public places. . Va. J. Law Technol. 16:(3):430–63
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Gee H. 2020.. Last call for the third-party doctrine in the digital age after carpenter?. Boston Univ. J. Sci. Technol. Law 26:(2):286–323
     [Google Scholar]
  32. George JF, Chen R, Yuan L. 2021.. Intent to purchase IoT home security devices: fear versus privacy. . PLOS ONE 16:(9):e0257601
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  33. Goldman v. United States, 316 US 129 ( 1942.)
  34. Groscup JL, Brank EM, Marshall E. 2020.. Home sweet house: The effect of dwelling type, location of sniff, and ownership on perceptions of canine searches. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, New Orleans, LA:
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Hodge SD Jr. 2020.. Big Brother is watching: law enforcement's use of digital technology in the twenty-first century. . Univ. Cincinnati Law Rev. 89::30–83
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Hubbart PA. 2005.. Making Sense of Search and Seizure Law: A Fourth Amendment Handbook. Durham, NC:: Carolina Acad.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Hunt-Grubbe H. 2020.. The many faces of surveillance: ethical considerations that encompass the use of electronic monitoring in criminal and clinical populations. . In Ethical Issues in Clinical Forensic Psychiatry, ed. A Igoumenou , pp. 115–34. Cham, Switz:.: Springer Int. Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 US 405 ( 2005.)
  39. Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 US 32 ( 2000.)
  40. Jamwal R, Jarman HK, Roseingrave E, Douglas J, Winkler D. 2022.. Smart home and communication technology for people with disability: a scoping review. . Disabil. Rehabil. 17:(6):624–44
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Kang H, Jung EH. 2021.. The smart wearables-privacy paradox: a cluster analysis of smartwatch users. . Behav. Inf. Technol. 40:(16):1755–68
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  42. Katz v. United States, 389 US 347 ( 1967.)
  43. Kerr OS. 2015.. Katz has only one step: the irrelevance of subjective expectations. . Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 82::113–34
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Kessler DK. 2009.. Free to leave? An empirical look at the Fourth Amendment's seizure standard. . J. Crim. Law Criminol. 99:(1):51–89
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Kokkoris MD, Kamleitner B. 2020.. Would you sacrifice your privacy to protect public health? Prosocial responsibility in a pandemic paves the way for digital surveillance. . Front. Psychol. 11::578618
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  46. Kowalczuk P. 2018.. Consumer acceptance of smart speakers: a mixed methods approach. . J. Res. Interact. Mark. 12:(4):418–31
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Kugler MB. 2023.. Public perceptions can guide regulation of public facial recognition. . Sci. Technol. Law Rev. 25:(1). https://doi.org/10.52214/stlr.v25i1.12380
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  48. Kugler MB, Strahilevitz LJ. 2016.. Actual expectations of privacy, Fourth Amendment doctrine, and the mosaic theory. . Supreme Court Rev. 2015::205–63
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  49. Kyllo v. United States, 533 US 27 ( 2001.)
  50. LaFave WR, Israel JH, King NJ, Kerr OS. 2017.. Criminal Procedure. St. Paul:: West Acad. Publ. , 6th ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Landau R, Auslander GK, Werner S, Shoval N, Heinik J. 2010.. Families’ and professional caregivers’ views of using advanced technology to track people with dementia. . Qual. Health Res. 20:(3):409–19
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  52. Landau R, Werner S. 2012.. Ethical aspects of using GPS for tracking people with dementia: recommendations for practice. . Int. Psychogeriatr. 24:(3):358–66
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  53. Lewandowsky S, Dennis S, Perfors A, Kashima Y, White JP, et al. 2021.. Public acceptance of privacy-encroaching policies to address the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. . PLOS ONE 16:(1):e0245740
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  54. Lutz C, Newlands G. 2021.. Privacy and smart speakers: a multi-dimensional approach. . Inf. Soc. 37:(3):147–62
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  55. Lynch J. 2021.. Modern-day general warrants and the challenge of protecting third-party privacy rights in mass, suspicionless searches of consumer databases. Aegis Ser. Pap. 2104 , Hoover Work. Group Natl. Secur. Technol. Law, Hoover Inst., Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Lynskey D. 2019.. “ Alexa, are you invading my privacy?”—the dark side of our voice assistants. . Guardian, Oct. 9. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/09/alexa-are-you-invading-my-privacy-the-dark-side-of-our-voice-assistants
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Maccario G, Naldi M. 2023.. Alexa, is my data safe? The (ir)relevance of privacy in smart speakers reviews. . Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 39:(6):1244–56
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  58. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 ( 1961.)
  59. 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:(6):751–75
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  60. McCartt AT, Farmer CM, Jenness JW. 2010.. Perceptions and experiences of participants in a study of in-vehicle monitoring of teenage drivers. . Traffic Inj. Prev. 11:(4):361–70
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  61. McLean G, Osei-Frimpong K. 2019.. Hey Alexa…examine the variables influencing the use of artificial intelligent in-home voice assistants. . Comput. Hum. Behav. 99::28–37
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  62. Merrill M. 2020.. An uneasy love triangle between Alexa, your personal life, and data security: exploring privacy in the digital new age. . Mercer Law Rev. 71::637–58
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 US 567 ( 1988.)
  64. Nadler J. 2002.. No need to shout: bus sweeps and the psychology of coercion. . Supreme Court Rev. 2002::153–222
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  65. Nelson BW, Allen NB. 2018.. Extending the passive-sensing toolbox: using smart-home technology in psychological science. . Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13:(6):718–33
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  66. Nema P, Anthonysamy P, Taft N, Peddinti ST. 2022.. Analyzing user perspectives on mobile app privacy at scale. . In Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 112–24. New York:: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. O'Flaherty K. 2019.. Amazon staff are listening to Alexa conversations–here's what to do. . Forbes, April 12. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2019/04/12/amazon-staff-are-listening-to-alexa-conversations-heres-what-to-do/#47e5123f71a2
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Ohio v. Robinette, 519 US 33 ( 1996.)
  69. Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 438 ( 1928.)
  70. Pfeifle A. 2018.. Alexa, what should we do about privacy: protecting privacy for users of voice-activated devices comments. . Wash. Law Rev. 93:(1):421–58
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Pirzada P, Wilde A, Doherty GH, Harris-Birtill D. 2022.. Ethics and acceptance of smart homes for older adults. . Inform. Health Soc. Care 47:(1):10–37
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  72. Pitardi V, Marriott HR. 2021.. Alexa, she's not human but…Unveiling the drivers of consumers’ trust in voice-based artificial intelligence. . Psychol. Mark. 38:(4):626–42
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  73. Riley v. California, 573 US 373 ( 2014.)
  74. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 US 348 ( 2015.)
  75. Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 ( 1973.)
  76. Sanchez J. 2020.. A new era: digital curtilage and Alexa-enabled smart home devices. . Touro Law Rev. 36:(2):663–706
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Schnader J. 2019.. Alexa, are you a foreign agent? Confronting the risk of foreign intelligence exploitation of private home networks, home assistants, and connectivity in the security clearance process. . Richmond J. Law Technol. 25:(4):1–63
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 US 218 ( 1973.)
  79. Scott-Hayward CS, Fradella HF, Fischer RG. 2015.. Does privacy require secrecy: societal expectations of privacy in the digital age. . Am. J. Crim. Law 43:(1):19–60
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Seberger JS, Patil S. 2021.. Us and them (and it): social orientation, privacy concerns, and expected use of pandemic-tracking apps in the United States. . In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, art. 65 . New York:: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Simmons R. 2005.. Not “voluntary” but still reasonable: a new paradigm for understanding the consent searches doctrine. . Indiana Law J. 80:(3):773–824
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Skinner v. Railway Labor Exec. Assoc., 489 US 602 ( 1989.)
  83. Sklansky DA. 2000.. The Fourth Amendment and common law. . Columbia Law Rev. 100:(7):1739–814
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  84. Slobogin C, Schumacher JE. 1993.. Rating the intrusiveness of law enforcement searches and seizures. . Law Hum. Behav. 17:(2):183–200
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  85. Smith A, Madden S, Barton RP. 2016.. An empirical examination of societal expectations of privacy in the digital age of GPS, cell phone towers, & drones. . Albany Law J. Sci. Technol. 26:(1):111–42
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Smith v. Maryland, 442 US 735 ( 1979.)
  87. Sommers R, Bohns VK. 2023.. Consent searches and underestimation of compliance: robustness to type of search, consequences of search, and demographic sample. . J. Empir. Legal Stud. 21:(1):4–34
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  88. State of Arkansas v. James A. Bates, case no. 2016-370-2 (Ark. Cir . 2016.)
  89. State v. Ferrier, 960 P.2d 927 ( 1998.)
  90. State v. Johnson, 346 A.2d 66 ( 1975.)
  91. Stevens N, Keyes O. 2021.. Seeing infrastructure: race, facial recognition and the politics of data. . Cult. Stud. 35:(4–5):833–53
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  92. Stewart P. 1983.. The road to Mapp v. Ohio and beyond: the origins, development and future of the exclusionary rule in search-and-seizure cases. . 83(6):1365–404
  93. Sutherland BA. 2006.. Whether consent to search was given voluntarily: a statistical analysis of factors that predict the suppression rulings of the federal district courts. . N.Y. Univ. Law Rev. 81::2192–234
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 ( 1968.)
  95. Tiersma PM, Solan LM. 2004.. Cops and robbers: selective literalism in American criminal law. . Law Soc. Rev. 38:(2):229–66
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  96. Tokson M. 2016.. Knowledge and Fourth Amendment privacy. . Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 111:(1):139–204
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Tokson M. 2018.. The aftermath of Carpenter: an empirical study of Fourth Amendment law, 2018–2021. . Harvard Law Rev. 135:(7):1790–852
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Tokson M. 2022.. Telephone pole cameras under Fourth Amendment law. . Ohio State Law J. 83:(5):977–1002
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Tokson MJ. 2023.. The Carpenter test as a transformation of Fourth Amendment law. . Univ. Ill. Law Rev. 2023::507–35
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Tursi R. 2023.. Gone fishing: casting a wide net using geofence warrants. . Wash. Law Rev. 98::323–62
     [Google Scholar]
  101. United States v. Cuevas-Sanchez, 821 F. 2d 248 (5th Cir . 1987.)
  102. United States v. Drayton, 536 US 194 ( 2002.)
  103. United States v. Houston, 205 F. Supp. 2d 856 (W.D. Tenn . 2002.)
  104. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 US 109 ( 1984.)
  105. United States v. Jones, 565 US 400 ( 2012.)
  106. United States v. Karo, 468 US 705 ( 1984.)
  107. United States v. Knotts, 460 US 276 ( 1983.)
  108. United States v. Miller, 425 US 435 ( 1976.)
  109. United States v. Place, 462 US 696 ( 1983.)
  110. Vimalkumar M, Sharma SK, Singh JB, Dwivedi YK. 2021.. “ Okay Google, what about my privacy?”: User's privacy perceptions and acceptance of voice based digital assistants. . Comput. Hum. Behav. 120::106763
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  111. Weeks v. United States, 232 US 383 ( 1914.)
  112. Weintraub S. 2018.. Hey Alexa: Was it the butler, in the foyer, with the candlestick? Understanding Amazon's Echo and whether the government can retrieve its data comments. . Am. Univ. Bus. Law Rev. 7:(1):155–78
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Williams M, Nurse JRC, Creese S. 2019a.. Smartwatch games: encouraging privacy-protective behaviour in a longitudinal study. . Comput. Hum. Behav. 99::38–54
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  114. Williams M, Nurse JRC, Creese S. 2019b.. ( Smart)watch out! Encouraging privacy-protective behavior through interactive games. . Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 132::121–37
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  115. Wold A. 2023.. Katz in the digital age: Why the Katz subjective prong must be restrengthened. . Southwestern Law Rev. 52::174–90
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-042022-112215
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

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