Crim J 101

Crim J 101


The world of policing in the technology age is difficult – technology  is advancing faster than the law’s ability to gauge the interplay of  technology with regard to search and seizure issues. For this  assignment, two cases set the stage: Olmstead and Katz. Katz is at p.197 of your text; it reverses the decision reached some 50 years earlier in Olmstead, two cases with virtually identical fact patterns (the use of wire tapping to record conversations in a telephone booth). Katz,  quoting extensively from Justice Brandeis’ dissent, help that the 4th  Amendment protects people, not places. Note that a “Reasonable  Expectation of Privacy” is at the heart of 4th Amendment law. This means  that a defendant must have a subjective expectation of privacy in what  is searched, and that society must agree that that expectation is  reasonable (objective test).  

With regard to technology (i.e.your cell phone), much data is stored  by private companies, not by the government. The data includes  information regarding your whereabouts, collected from your cell phone,  even when your phone is not in use. It is possible to track a person’s  movements with a high degree of accuracy simply by accessing this data.

Please discuss, in 750 – 1000 words, the implications for this  reality for policing. Do you think the typical citizen knows that this  type of data is preserved? Would the citizen believe that she has a  reasonable expectation of privacy? Should government be able to access  this data, and if so, under what conditions? Should a warrant be  necessary?

Cite to at least two of the following four cases. Note that Brandeis’ dissent from Olmstead

is included here as if set forth in full. (In fact, this snippet is 

downloaded from Wikipedia, a step I do NOT normally allow.) You may cite

to each as presented here.

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ____ (2018)

Associate Justice Brandeis (1928)