Skip to main content
Unpublished Paper
BACK TO THE FUTURE: THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES REASONABLENESS AND PARTICULARITY—INTRODUCING THE “SEIZE BUT DON’T SEARCH” DOCTRINE
ExpressO (2014)
  • Adam Lamparello, Indiana Tech Law School
  • Charles E. MacLean, Indiana Tech Law School
Abstract

Issuing one-hundred or fewer opinions per year, the United States Supreme Court cannot keep pace with opinions that match technological advancement. As a result, in Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, the Court needs to announce a broader principle that protects privacy in the digital age. That principle, what we call “seize but don’t search,” recognizes that the constitutional touchstone for all searches is reasonableness.

When do present-day circumstances—the evolution in the Government’s surveillance capabilities, citizens’ phone habits, and the relationship between the NSA and telecom companies—become so thoroughly unlike those considered by the Supreme Court thirty-four years ago that a precedent … simply does not apply? The answer, unfortunately for the Government, is now.[1]

[1] Klayman v. Obama, No. 13-0851, 2013 WL 6571596, at *21 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2013).

Keywords
  • privacy,
  • technology,
  • fourth amendment,
  • search and seizure,
  • riley,
  • wurie,
  • search incident to arrest,
  • chimel,
  • katz
Publication Date
February 19, 2014
Citation Information
Adam Lamparello and Charles E. MacLean. "BACK TO THE FUTURE: THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES REASONABLENESS AND PARTICULARITY—INTRODUCING THE “SEIZE BUT DON’T SEARCH” DOCTRINE" ExpressO (2014)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/adam_lamparello/12/