6 ms·
"the Court is cautiously developing new standards of Fourth Amendment protection, including a rejection of a strong third party doctrine." https://works.bepres
by dimino 10y ago
"the Court is cautiously developing new standards of Fourth Amendment protection, including a rejection of a strong third party doctrine."
https://works.bepress.com/stephen_henderson/34/ https://works.bepress.com/stephen_henderson/34/
- pdkl95 10y agoUS v Jones, which your link discusses, didn't rule on the 3rd-party doctrine, which is (unfortunately) still being used. Yes, Justice Sotomayor, in her concurring opinion, made a very good case for revisiting what "expectation of privacy" means and suggested that constitutional protections should extend into 3rd party data. Chief Justice Roberts made similar comments[1] in the court opinion for Riley v. CA. However, those cases addressed specific questions (placing a GPS tracking device, and searching a cellphone that was found upon arrest) and did not rule on the general use of the 3rd-party doctrine. I hope those cases are a sign of change in the court that will lead to broader rulings in the future, but that hasn't happened yet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California#Opinion_of_the_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California#Opinion_of...
- dimino 10y ago> But in the broader view, it is not merely one Justice who will not apply the third party doctrine in a strong form, and thus I have previously written the doctrine’s obituary.