Concreteness Drift and the Fourth Amendment
Luke M. Milligan
University of Louisville - Louis D. Brandeis School of Law
January 25, 2014
Mississippi Law Journal, Vol. 82, 2013
University of Louisville School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2014-03
Katz v. United States was expected to reorient interpretations of the Fourth Amendment. This was not simply because Katz repealed the constitutional rules governing electronic eavesdropping established in Olmstead v. United States. Rather, it was because Katz called for doctrinal reform across a broad swath of cases-the entire catalogue of "search" issues-and it supplanted a mechanical rule with an open standard based on contextual and evolving societal expectations. Of course the hope of Katz would prove hollow. In forty-five years, Katz has had only a marginal impact on the Court's "search" decision-making. Put more directly, Katz has failed to direct judges to evaluate the term "search" based on contextual and evolving privacy norms. Explanations for Katz's failure come in many forms: some point to the resilience of the justices' personal juridical and policy preferences; others to the vagueness of the Katz opinions themselves; and still others to the inaccessibility of good empirical data regarding "reasonable expectations of privacy." I agree, more or less, with each of these explanations. Yet I believe that the prevailing explanations are somewhat incomplete. This essay seeks to offer a fuller picture of Katz's failure.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 33
Keywords: Fourth Amendment, Katz v. United States, Olmstead v. United States, constitutional law, electronic eavesdropping
JEL Classification: K1, K39Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: January 27, 2014
© 2015 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.406 seconds