Jul 072014
 
 July 7, 2014  Court

Babak Siavoshy writes:

In light of the renewed discussion on the future of the third party doctrine this blog  and elsewhere (much of it attributable to Riley), I’d like to focus my next couple of posts on the oft-criticized rule, with the aim of exploring a few questions that will hopefully be interesting* to readers. For the purpose of these posts, I’m assuming readers are familiar with the third party doctrine and the arguments for and against it.

I’ll start with the following question: Let’s assume the Supreme Court decides to scale back the third party doctrine. Where in the Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence should the Justices look for an alternative approach? I think this is an interesting and important question in light of the serious debate, both in academia and on the Supreme Court, about the third party doctrine’s effect on privacy in the information age.

One answer, which may represent the conventional wisdom, is that there simply is nothing in the Supreme Court’s existing precedent that supports a departure from the Court’s all or nothing approach to Fourth Amendment rights in Smith and Miller.

Read more on Concurring Opinions.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.