The Many Revolutions of Carpenter

Paul Ohm
{"title":"The Many Revolutions of Carpenter","authors":"Paul Ohm","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/bsedj","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Carpenter v. United States, the 2018 Supreme Court opinion that requires the police to obtain a warrant to access an individual’s historical whereabouts from the records of a cell phone provider, is the most important Fourth Amendment opinion in decades. Although many have acknowledged some of the ways the opinion has changed the doctrine of Constitutional privacy, the importance of Carpenter has not yet been fully appreciated. Carpenter works many revolutions in the law, not only through its holding and new rule, but in more fundamental respects. The opinion reinvents the reasonable expectation of privacy test as it applies to large databases of information about individuals. It turns the third-party doctrine inside out, requiring judges to scrutinize the products of purely private decisions. In dicta, it announces a new rule of technological equivalence, which might end up covering more police activity than the core rule. Finally, it embraces technological exceptionalism as a centerpiece for the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, rejecting backwards-looking interdisciplinary methods such as legal history or surveys of popular attitudes. Considering all of these revolutions, Carpenter is the most important Fourth Amendment decision since Katz v. United States, a case it might end up rivaling in influence.","PeriodicalId":81374,"journal":{"name":"Harvard journal of law & technology","volume":"51 1","pages":"357"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harvard journal of law & technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/bsedj","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Carpenter v. United States, the 2018 Supreme Court opinion that requires the police to obtain a warrant to access an individual’s historical whereabouts from the records of a cell phone provider, is the most important Fourth Amendment opinion in decades. Although many have acknowledged some of the ways the opinion has changed the doctrine of Constitutional privacy, the importance of Carpenter has not yet been fully appreciated. Carpenter works many revolutions in the law, not only through its holding and new rule, but in more fundamental respects. The opinion reinvents the reasonable expectation of privacy test as it applies to large databases of information about individuals. It turns the third-party doctrine inside out, requiring judges to scrutinize the products of purely private decisions. In dicta, it announces a new rule of technological equivalence, which might end up covering more police activity than the core rule. Finally, it embraces technological exceptionalism as a centerpiece for the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, rejecting backwards-looking interdisciplinary methods such as legal history or surveys of popular attitudes. Considering all of these revolutions, Carpenter is the most important Fourth Amendment decision since Katz v. United States, a case it might end up rivaling in influence.
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
木匠的多次革命
2018年最高法院的“卡彭特诉美国案”(Carpenter v. United States)要求警方获得搜查令,才能从手机提供商的记录中获取个人的历史行踪,这是几十年来第四修正案中最重要的意见。尽管许多人承认,这一判决在某些方面改变了宪法隐私权原则,但卡彭特案的重要性尚未得到充分认识。卡彭特在法律领域掀起了许多革命,不仅是通过法律的确立和新的规则,而且是在更基本的方面。该意见重新定义了隐私测试的合理预期,因为它适用于个人信息的大型数据库。它彻底颠覆了第三方原则,要求法官仔细审查纯粹私人决定的产物。在口头上,它宣布了一项新的技术对等规则,该规则最终可能比核心规则涵盖更多的警察活动。最后,它将技术例外论作为解释第四修正案的核心,拒绝法律史或民意调查等落后的跨学科方法。考虑到所有这些革命,卡彭特案是自卡茨诉美国案(Katz v. United States)以来最重要的第四修正案裁决,它最终可能会在影响力上与之匹敌。
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
The Many Revolutions of Carpenter Compelled Decryption and the Fifth Amendment: Exploring the Technical Boundaries Vested Use-Privileges in Property and Copyright Encryption Congress Mod (Apple + CALEA) Regulating Artificial Intelligence Systems: Risks, Challenges, Competencies, and Strategies
×
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