This Note argues that the “specific and articulable facts” standard does not accord with the intent of the drafters of the Fourth Amendment to protect individuals’ reasonable expectation of privacy. Although allowing the government access to historical cell site data to use as evidence in a criminal proceeding aids law enforcement, legislators must recognize the risks that flow from allowing the government to retrieve cell phone location information without probable cause. At least one study suggests that the public is losing confidence in their ability to control personal information, ultimately creating public discomfort with and suspicion of government surveillance. If Congress declines to amend the statute, the idea of a “big brother” g...
The ubiquity of cell phones has transformed police investigations. Tracking a suspect\u27s movements...
Can the Fourth Amendment protect an individual’s right privacy by preventing the disclosure of her l...
Part I of this note discusses the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seiz...
This Note argues that the “specific and articulable facts” standard does not accord with the intent ...
In 2012, federal juries convicted two men of armed robbery based in part on historical cell site loc...
In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court will decide whether the government’s acquisition of...
In a significant ruling in the fall of 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the governm...
The warrantless acquisition of cell site location information (CSLI) by law enforcement implicates s...
Police surveillance ability and information gathering capacity have a dynamic relationship with tech...
In light of society\u27s increasing reliance on technology, this article explores a critical questio...
In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court found that a warrant was required to obtain histori...
Only a small fraction of law enforcement agencies in the United States obtain a warrant before track...
In 2015, a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit ruled in United States v. Graham that the collection ...
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seiz...
In modern society, the cell phone has become a virtual extension of most Americans, managing all kin...
The ubiquity of cell phones has transformed police investigations. Tracking a suspect\u27s movements...
Can the Fourth Amendment protect an individual’s right privacy by preventing the disclosure of her l...
Part I of this note discusses the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seiz...
This Note argues that the “specific and articulable facts” standard does not accord with the intent ...
In 2012, federal juries convicted two men of armed robbery based in part on historical cell site loc...
In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court will decide whether the government’s acquisition of...
In a significant ruling in the fall of 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the governm...
The warrantless acquisition of cell site location information (CSLI) by law enforcement implicates s...
Police surveillance ability and information gathering capacity have a dynamic relationship with tech...
In light of society\u27s increasing reliance on technology, this article explores a critical questio...
In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court found that a warrant was required to obtain histori...
Only a small fraction of law enforcement agencies in the United States obtain a warrant before track...
In 2015, a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit ruled in United States v. Graham that the collection ...
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seiz...
In modern society, the cell phone has become a virtual extension of most Americans, managing all kin...
The ubiquity of cell phones has transformed police investigations. Tracking a suspect\u27s movements...
Can the Fourth Amendment protect an individual’s right privacy by preventing the disclosure of her l...
Part I of this note discusses the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seiz...