Personal Curtilage: Fourth Amendment Security in Public

A. Ferguson
{"title":"Personal Curtilage: Fourth Amendment Security in Public","authors":"A. Ferguson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2230653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Do citizens have any Fourth Amendment protection from sense-enhancing surveillance technologies in public? This article engages a timely question as new surveillance technologies have redefined expectations of privacy in public spaces. This article proposes a new theory of Fourth Amendment security based on the ancient theory of curtilage protection for private property. Curtilage has long been understood as a legal fiction that expands the protection of the home beyond the formal structures of the house. Curtilage recognizes a buffer zone beyond the four corners of the home that deserves protection, even in public, even if accessible to public view. Based on custom and law protecting against both nosy neighbors and the government, curtilage was defined by the actions the property owner took to signal a protected space. In simple terms, by building a wall around one’s house, the property owner marked out an area of private control. So, too, the theory of personal curtilage turns on persons being able to control the protected areas of their lives in public by similarly signifying that an area is meant to be secure from others. This article develops a theory of personal curtilage built on four overlapping foundational principles. First, persons can build a constitutional protected space secure from governmental surveillance in public. Second, to claim this space as secure from governmental surveillance, the person must affirmatively mark that space in some symbolic manner. Third, these spaces must be related to areas of personal autonomy or intimate connection, be it personal, familial, or associational. Fourth, these contested spaces – like traditional curtilage – will be evaluated by objectively balancing these factors to determine if a Fourth Amendment search has occurred. Adapting the framework of traditional trespass, an intrusion by sense-enhancing technologies into this protected personal curtilage would be a search for Fourth Amendment purposes.The article concludes that the theory of personal curtilage improves and clarifies the existing Fourth Amendment doctrine and offers a new framework for future cases. It also addresses the need for a new vision of trespass to address omnipresent sense-enhancing surveillance technologies.","PeriodicalId":75324,"journal":{"name":"William and Mary law review","volume":"55 1","pages":"1283"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"William and Mary law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2230653","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Do citizens have any Fourth Amendment protection from sense-enhancing surveillance technologies in public? This article engages a timely question as new surveillance technologies have redefined expectations of privacy in public spaces. This article proposes a new theory of Fourth Amendment security based on the ancient theory of curtilage protection for private property. Curtilage has long been understood as a legal fiction that expands the protection of the home beyond the formal structures of the house. Curtilage recognizes a buffer zone beyond the four corners of the home that deserves protection, even in public, even if accessible to public view. Based on custom and law protecting against both nosy neighbors and the government, curtilage was defined by the actions the property owner took to signal a protected space. In simple terms, by building a wall around one’s house, the property owner marked out an area of private control. So, too, the theory of personal curtilage turns on persons being able to control the protected areas of their lives in public by similarly signifying that an area is meant to be secure from others. This article develops a theory of personal curtilage built on four overlapping foundational principles. First, persons can build a constitutional protected space secure from governmental surveillance in public. Second, to claim this space as secure from governmental surveillance, the person must affirmatively mark that space in some symbolic manner. Third, these spaces must be related to areas of personal autonomy or intimate connection, be it personal, familial, or associational. Fourth, these contested spaces – like traditional curtilage – will be evaluated by objectively balancing these factors to determine if a Fourth Amendment search has occurred. Adapting the framework of traditional trespass, an intrusion by sense-enhancing technologies into this protected personal curtilage would be a search for Fourth Amendment purposes.The article concludes that the theory of personal curtilage improves and clarifies the existing Fourth Amendment doctrine and offers a new framework for future cases. It also addresses the need for a new vision of trespass to address omnipresent sense-enhancing surveillance technologies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
私人住宅:第四修正案公共安全
公民是否受到第四修正案的保护,在公共场合不受增强感官的监控技术的影响?随着新的监控技术重新定义了对公共空间隐私的期望,这篇文章提出了一个及时的问题。本文在古代宅院私有财产保护理论的基础上,提出了一种新的第四修正案担保理论。长期以来,宅院一直被理解为一种法律虚构,它将对房屋的保护扩展到房屋的正式结构之外。宅院是在住宅四角之外的缓冲区,即使在公共场合,即使在公众视野范围内,也应该受到保护。根据习俗和法律,为了防止邻居和政府的八卦,宅院是由业主采取的行动来定义的,以表明这是一个受保护的空间。简而言之,通过在房子周围建一堵墙,业主划出了一个私人控制的区域。因此,个人住宅理论也转向了人们能够在公共场合控制自己生活的受保护区域,通过同样的方式表明一个区域是安全的。本文从四个重叠的基本原则出发,提出了个人宅院建设的理论。首先,人们可以在公共场合建立一个受宪法保护的空间,免受政府的监视。其次,要声称这个空间是安全的,不受政府监视,这个人必须以某种象征性的方式肯定地标记这个空间。第三,这些空间必须与个人自治或亲密联系有关,无论是个人的、家庭的还是社团的。第四,这些有争议的空间——就像传统的宅院一样——将通过客观地平衡这些因素来评估,以确定是否发生了第四修正案的搜查。调整传统的非法侵入的框架,通过感官增强技术侵入受保护的私人住宅将是对第四修正案目的的搜索。本文的结论是,个人宅基地理论完善和澄清了现有的第四修正案原则,并为今后的案件提供了一个新的框架。它还解决了对非法侵入的新看法的需要,以解决无处不在的增强感官的监视技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
GENETIC DUTIES. Functional Corporate Knowledge THE GENETIC INFORMATION NONDISCRIMINATION ACT AT AGE 10: GINA'S CONTROVERSIAL ASSERTION THAT DATA TRANSPARENCY PROTECTS PRIVACY AND CIVIL RIGHTS. Prosecuting Poverty, Criminalizing Care Pereira's Aftershocks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1