What is a Search: Two Conceptual Flaws in Fourth Amendment Doctrine and Some Hints of a Remedy

IF 4.9 1区 社会学 Q1 Social Sciences Stanford Law Review Pub Date : 2002-10-01 DOI:10.2307/1229591
S. F. Colb
{"title":"What is a Search: Two Conceptual Flaws in Fourth Amendment Doctrine and Some Hints of a Remedy","authors":"S. F. Colb","doi":"10.2307/1229591","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\"What Is A Search: Two Conceptual Flaws in Fourth Amendment Doctrine & Some Hints of a Remedy\" analyzes and critiques Fourth Amendment doctrine addressing the question of which government activities count as \"searches\" for Fourth Amendment purposes. The Article contends that the original articulation of the \"reasonable expectation of privacy\" standard in Katz v. United States made sense, but that the Court has, in subsequently applying and developing it, effectively robbed the doctrine of its protective power. It has done so through the use of two \"moves\" that are identified and developed in the Article: the equation of risk with invitation, and the equation of limited with absolute exposure. The Article demonstrates the pervasiveness of these moves as well as the perverse consequences of their application for the future of privacy.","PeriodicalId":51386,"journal":{"name":"Stanford Law Review","volume":"56 1","pages":"119-189"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2002-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/1229591","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stanford Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1229591","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

"What Is A Search: Two Conceptual Flaws in Fourth Amendment Doctrine & Some Hints of a Remedy" analyzes and critiques Fourth Amendment doctrine addressing the question of which government activities count as "searches" for Fourth Amendment purposes. The Article contends that the original articulation of the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard in Katz v. United States made sense, but that the Court has, in subsequently applying and developing it, effectively robbed the doctrine of its protective power. It has done so through the use of two "moves" that are identified and developed in the Article: the equation of risk with invitation, and the equation of limited with absolute exposure. The Article demonstrates the pervasiveness of these moves as well as the perverse consequences of their application for the future of privacy.
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
什么是搜查:第四修正案原则的两个概念缺陷和补救的一些暗示
“什么是搜查:第四修正案原则中的两个概念缺陷&一些补救的暗示”分析和批评了第四修正案原则,该原则解决了政府活动在第四修正案目的下算作“搜查”的问题。文章认为,在卡茨诉美国案中,“对隐私的合理期望”标准的最初表述是有意义的,但法院在随后的应用和发展中,有效地剥夺了该原则的保护力量。它通过使用文章中确定和发展的两种“招式”来做到这一点:风险与邀请的等式,以及有限与绝对暴露的等式。这篇文章展示了这些举动的普遍性,以及它们对隐私未来应用的反常后果。
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
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
2.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
Does nationality affect nurses' information security participation? A comparative study in Iran and Poland. "Sorry” Is Never Enough: How State Apology Laws Fail to Reduce Medical Malpractice Liability Risk. What Is Federalism in Healthcare For? "Sorry” Is Never Enough: How State Apology Laws Fail to Reduce Medical Malpractice Liability Risk. Interrogated with Intellectual Disabilities: The Risks of False Confession.
×
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