Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2217844
 
 

Footnotes (75)



 


 



Body Snatchers


Heidi Reamer Anderson



February 13, 2013

Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 11 (2014, Forthcoming)

Abstract:     
In U.S. v. Jones, five concurring justices expressed their forward-looking discomfort with law enforcement’s warrantless use of surveillance technologies in public. The source of the justices’ discomfort was two-dimensional — “easy and cheap” search technologies were problematic because they increased the intrusiveness of, and the duration of, public surveillance. Although the justices carefully explained their concerns, they did not clearly identify the Fourth Amendment precedential hooks on which to hang those concerns. Accordingly, the concurrences left two key questions unanswered: (i) what is it about extended, warrantless public tracking that makes it feel so intuitively unreasonable, and (ii) is there support for that intuitive feeling in prior Fourth Amendment cases?

In this Essay, I suggest that extended, warrantless public tracking feels so intuitively unreasonable because it equates to virtual “body snatching.” Body snatching occurs when warrantless tracking is so personally intrusive, over such a long period of time, that it feels very much like a physical detention in public. Thus, in searching for the missing Fourth Amendment precedential support for the Jones concurrences’ intrusion and duration concerns, I suggest that the Court consider U.S. v. Place. In Place, the Court required a finding of probable cause prior to the seizure and dog sniff of luggage due to the intrusiveness of, and length of detention associated with, the luggage seizure. Similarly, the Court soon could find that warrantless, public tracking is not a search unless the intrusiveness and duration of the tracking cross lines similar to those crossed in Place. Using Place in this fashion would provide a solid foundation for restricting warrantless GPS tracking while also providing familiar certainty to law enforcement.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 14

Keywords: Fourth Amendment, search, seizure, Jones, U.S. v. Jones, U.S. v. Place, dog sniff, surveillance, tracking, GPS

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: February 14, 2013 ; Last revised: March 25, 2014

Suggested Citation

Anderson, Heidi Reamer, Body Snatchers (February 13, 2013). Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 11 (2014, Forthcoming). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2217844 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2217844

Contact Information

No contact information is available for Heidi Reamer Anderson
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 204
Downloads: 25
Footnotes:  75

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.265 seconds