Following the publication of Orin Kerr’s article, Applying the Fourth Amendment to the Internet: A General Approach (mentioned here), Orin and defense attorney Scott Greenfield had an interesting exchange on Scott’s blog as to whether to try to apply brick and mortar Fourth Amendment law to the Internet and new technology or to start all over again. You can read that exchange on Simple Justice.
There was also another interesting commentary on the Fourth Amendment in the Stanford Law Review, this one by David B. Owens: Fourth Amendment Remedial Equilibration: A Comment on Herring v. United States and Pearson v. Callahan. The commentary begins:
The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but determining what this right means and how it should be vindicated has, to put it mildly, long been controversial. In fact, because of the “wide applicability of government intrusions, ranging from countless thousands of daily intrusions at airports, traffic stops, drug testing, traditional criminal law enforcement practices, regulatory intrusions[,] . . . and many other searches and seizures, the Amendment is the most commonly implicated and litigated part of our Constitution.” Perhaps the most contentious element in the controversy surrounding the Fourth Amendment is determining how to enforce it—whether by the exclusionary rule, which requires unlawfully obtained evidence to be suppressed from a criminal prosecution; a civil damages remedy; an administrative sanction; or some other means.
You can read the whole commentary here.