¬Overview and Definition
Reasonable expectation of privacy is an element of privacy law that determines which places and which activities a person has a legal right to privacy (What is the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, 2017). Another definition of reasonable expectation of privacy is the “lawful right to not be disturbed”. Conversely, third party doctrine depends on voluntary divulgence of information to another individual or party. In doing so, the individual willingly gives up their right to privacy of that information provided. The text gives examples of both reasonable expectation of privacy as well as third party doctrine.
Third Party Doctrine
Third party doctrine has overridden the Fourth Amendment at times
…show more content…
when individuals assumed their activities were covered under the Fourth Amendment when in fact they were not. These cases include Smith vs Maryland and U.S. vs Miller. The text also raises concerns over privacy of medical records and health issues. In Smith vs Maryland, the defendant, Michael Lee Smith robbed a female afterwards placing threatening calls to her residence from his home phone.
The victim reported the calls to the police. Police installed a pen register without a warrant or court order at the central telephone center, and used it to eventually identify the defendant and arrest him. The defendant contended that the pen register violated his fourth amendment rights as due to privacy of the number from his home phone. This was moot per the book as the pen register was installed at the central telephone company. In this context, defendant Smith could not claim property invasion per the text as the register was not on his property. Third party doctrine applies as the telephone company also uses the pen register to correctly bill telephone number accounts. The Fourth amendment further does not apply as the defendant claims the pen register is a listening device, however, it only records outgoing numbers dialed. Another device called tap and trace devices record in and outgoing. Finally, the defendant in dialing the victims phone number takes risk into his own hands that a 3rd party could intercept the number. Banks also suffer from privacy issues due to
legislation. Looking at Smith vs U.S., bank privacy was challenged as law enforcement applied third party doctrine to accounts. The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 enabled law enforcement to investigate reported deposits over 10,000 dollars and withdrawals over 5,000 dollars (Solove, 2015). Checks were also made available to law enforcement for inspection and without notification to the accountholder. The government and/or law enforcement could form a profile of the account holder based on spending habits, what they purchase, balances, and where they shop. These cases raise a challenge for privacy of the individual. The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 creates a loophole for other information such as social security number, date of birth, address and other personally identifiable information to be obtained, creating a risk of leakage/abuse/mishandling of information. The text raises questions on just how far third-party doctrine extends. The text also mentions the possible suppression of intellectual activities and possibility of a totalitarian state. The only change noted from U.S. vs Smith is law enforcement must obtain a court order to access accounts, perform wiretap and pen register activities for an investigation. Probable cause for the pen register or wiretap must be demonstrated to a magistrate to obtain the warrant or court order. Without the court order, the evidence could violate the Fourth Amendment, resulting in evidence being quashed or civil damage lawsuits being filed. Warrants must also be obtained to open mail. This stems from the 18th century when unauthorized third parties read mail, forcing some colonials to write in code. Laws correcting this were passed during the 19th century. So again, how far does the third-party doctrine go? The text raises challenges on loop holes around the Fourth Amendment, citing legislation such as the Bank Secrecy Act and challenging the limits of the Fourth Amendment to enter evidence in a criminal trial. Items Abandoned to the Public and Deceitful DNA In California vs Greenwood, police found evidence in garbage bags of possible drug activity that were place out of the curb. The investigation started because of a complaint from neighbors. The text discerns two opposing views. One applies Katz vs U.S. with Justices Brennan and Marshall comparing going through trash is the same as going through drawers and closets in someone’s house. Justice White dissents, saying that trash is not covered under the Fourth Amendment as the garbage was in public view. More on Greenwood below to clarify. Greenwood, decided in 1988 opens third party doctrine and eliminates reasonable expectation of privacy as garbage placed on the curb is in public view. In conjunction with this, local government can inspect garbage for recycling violations. Animals may also get into the garbage looking for food. Continuing with DNA, it may also be obtained by the authorities as well without a warrant. DNA may be obtained from any subject of interest without a warrant or reasonable expectation of privacy as noted by the author in many ways. DNA left in cups, smoked cigarettes, plastic utensils, etc., are free game for authorities to collect and use. An example case is Washington D.C. vs Wint, 2013, where a pizza crust was used to identify the killer in a quadruple murder (Phillip & Alexander, 2015). Another case of DNA where the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply is State vs Athan. Here the police sent a fake letter that told the suspect he won a part of a class action suit, and the suspect sent a reply. Police used the DNA on the letter (saliva) to link the suspect to a crime that happened years earlier. Applicability of searches is discussed below. Examining whether a search is reasonable is currently decided by a judge. Some question whether a jury should decide instead of a judge as well as how much reasonable privacy are we entitled to concerning searches. Most cases seen in the text show no reasonable expectation of privacy, but more third-party doctrine. Searches were rated by C. Slobogin and J. Schumacher, using a poll, with 0 being the least intrusive and 100 being the most intrusive (Solove, 2015). The searches ranged from the search Florida vs Riley (no warrant needed to search from airspace) at 40.32 to a 90.14 for a body cavity search on the border. Critics of the reasonable privacy test differ in the text. Per Crocker, for instance, the Fourth Amendment should “protect all movement and social interaction in public and private, secure from arbitrary search.” Crocker’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment extends it further in this instance. Solove presents a different view. The author, Solove thinks that the privacy test should be abandoned as it is vague pertaining to what is correct and when it is proper to have judicial oversight of the law. Secondly, per Solove the Fourth Amendment should defend against information gathering problems of reasonable significance. Another supporter of Solove is Susan Freiwald that argues in the text and agrees on Solove’s view of the Fourth Amendment. Freiwald places four conditions on the applicability of the Fourth Amendment if the search is hidden, intrusive, indiscriminate, and continuous. Surveillance and the Use of Sense Enhancement Technology The text introduces the “Plain View” rule in Harris vs U.S., 1968, which states that if the evidence is in plain view of the officer, then it is admissible in court and no reasonable expectation of privacy can be expected. Included with the “plain view” rule is anything that is heard or done in public in front of the officer is also admissible. House curtilage, including some land objects attached to the house must have a reasonable expectation of privacy test performed. Florida vs Riley presented a challenge to the “Plain View” doctrine. Riley was convicted because of an aerial search that found marijuana in an open, unprotected part of a greenhouse. The house had a privacy fence, but law enforcement used a helicopter at 400 feet (allowable by Texas statute) to search the back yard. The open greenhouse eliminated the privacy issue as the marijuana that was being grown was in plain view. Advanced technology available to authorities present a concern for reasonable expectation of privacy. This raises concern with the advent of drones in the United States. The FAA has quoted that it “does not include developing a plan for privacy” for the drones. Although having to register the drone, reasonable expectation of privacy will be lost as drones will fly unrestricted. The text further discusses surveillance and facial recognition cameras. With the advent of the terrorist threat, there are surveillance cameras at all National Monuments since 2002. Walmart and other stores have facial recognition cameras. Per the text, this causes fear that the information will fall into the wrong hands. The presence of surveillance cameras may also cause the “Hawthorne Effect”, or fear of making an error because you are being watched. Challenges to the cameras occur in Laird vs Tatum and Dow vs U.S. In Laird vs Tatum, Laird failed to establish a “chill effect”, or concern about the cameras affecting their 1st Amendment rights while meeting in public. Plain view wins again and privacy loses. In Dow vs U.S., the EPA did not inform Dow that they were taking pictures of Dow corporate property, and accidentally photographed a house after Dow refused access for facility inspection. The final ruling stated that Dow only had reasonable expectation of privacy for indoor facilities, and that photography of the house was immaterial. High technology also has invaded our residential property. High tech sense equipment was used to break up a marijuana growing residence in Kyollo vs U.S. (Solove, 2015). Without a warrant, law enforcement, acting on a complaint used a thermal imager to detect heated areas where the marijuana may be growing. The court seen this as an unreasonable search and reversed the ruling, overturning the conviction. Summary In summary, different methods of technology have been applied to gather evidence in criminal trials. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search; however, that rule is superseded when the activity is in plain view. Furthermore, challenges to how far third-party doctrine goes before infringing on the Fourth and First Amendments will continue to surface. Although Congress has passed legislation updating the Fourth Amendment with technology as recent as 1986, there are still “gray areas” to repair and close the gap when a search is reasonable and when third-party doctrine take over.
One of the most sacred ideas that we hold dear is our right to privacy. It a simple correlation between being free and doing what we want, legally speaking, in our own homes and lives. Unfortunately, our lives seem to become less...
Current advancements in technology has given the government more tools for surveillance and thus leads to growing concerns for privacy. The two main categories of surveillance technologies are the ones that allow the government to gather information where previously unavailable or harder to obtain, and the ones that allow the government to process public information more quickly and efficiently (Simmons, 2007). The first category includes technologies like eavesdropping devices and hidden cameras. These are clear offenders of privacy because they are capable of gathering information while being largely unnoticed. The second category would include technologies that are used in a public space, like cameras in a public park. While these devices
Privacy postulates the reservation of a private space for the individual, described as the right to be let alone. The concept is founded on the autonomy of the individual. The ability of an individual to make choices lies at the core of the human personality. The Supreme Court protected the right to privacy of prostitute. The autonomy of the individual is associated over matters which can be kept private. These are concerns over which there is a legitimate expectation of privacy. Privacy has both a normative and descriptive function. At a normative level privacy sub-serves those eternal values upon which the guarantees of life, liberty and freedom are founded. At a descriptive level, privacy postulates a bundle of entitlements and interests
Micek, John L. “Is your cellphone protected by the 4th Amendment? Maybe not: What do you think?”The Patriot-News. (29 Apr. 2014).Web. 29 Apr. 2014
Many people live in fear that they are constantly being watched. Michael Jackson sang it best in the 80 's by saying, "I always feel like, somebody 's watching me," in his hit song with Rockwell. That 's exactly what the NSA and other government organizations are doing today with domestic surveillance. Everywhere Americans go and every corner they turn there is a camera, and every website or email they send is being monitored closely. So what can society do about this? Educate others on the situation and stand up for what is right. Some people believe they must give up some freedoms for protection, but at what cost? What is happening in America is not what the founding fathers fought for. Domestic surveillance should not be allowed because
Different people, cultures, and nations have a wide variety of expectations about how much privacy is entitled to or what constitutes an invasion of privacy. Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information. Personal privacy has been declining in the past year which is caused by today’s technological society. With the latest technology such as face scanners, data collecting, and highly advanced software’s, privacy can be compromised, which is exactly what is being done today and it is unconstitutionally intrusive.
The word “privacy” did not grow up with us throughout history, as it was already a cultural concept by our founding fathers. This term was later solidified in the nineteenth century, when the term “privacy” became a legal lexicon as Louis Brandeis (1890), former Supreme Court justice, wrote in a law review article, that, “privacy was the right to be let alone.” As previously mentioned in the introduction, the Supreme Court is the final authority on all issues between Privacy and Security. We started with the concept of our fore fathers that privacy was an agreed upon concept that became written into our legal vernacular. It is being proven that government access to individual information can intimidate the privacy that is at the very center of the association between the government and the population. The moral in...
Surveillance is the monitoring of the behaviour, activities, or other changing information, usually of people for the purpose of influencing, managing, directing or protecting them. The right of human beings basically entails freedom to basic things of life, part of which includes freedom to life, speech, vote and movement, all which are known as fundamental human rights. But with the advents of technology and the growth in the society, these have led to the development of satellite cables, which are used to monitor events at certain places with or without the knowledge of the residual/residents. Thus, the use of satellite cables has made the world a global village.
Solove, Daniel J. “5 Myths about Privacy” Washington Post: B3. Jun 16 2013. SIRS. Web. 10
Privacy in the Workplace Introduction Technology has developed in leaps and bounds over the past few decades. The case is that the law always has difficulty keeping pace with new issues and technology and the few laws that are enacted are usually very general and obscure. The main topic of this paper is to address the effect of technology on privacy in the workplace. We have to have an understanding of privacy before trying to protect it. Based on the Gift of Fire, privacy has three pieces: freedom from intrusion, control of information about one's self, and freedom from surveillance.1 People's rights have always been protected by the constitution, such as the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from "unreasonable searches and seizures".
As society has progressed, there have been many new innovative and unbelievable developments in almost all aspects of life that have ultimately created an impact. More specifically, advancements in technology have rather had a much larger and intense impact on society as it continues to grow. Technology has allowed for many great and useful applications that has made life much easier and convenient. However, many aspects of technology have given a rise to a number of social and ethical issues, causing numerous debates and concerns. One of the more prominent concerns deals with the issue of privacy rights.
The privacy of the individual is the most important right. Without privacy, the democratic system that we know would not exist. Privacy is one of the fundamental values on which our country was founded. There are exceptions to privacy rights that are created by the need for defense and security.
"National Security -- Telephony Metadata Collection -- White Paper Argues Metadata Collection Is Legal Under The USA Patriot Act." Harvard Law Review 127.6 (2014): 1871-1878. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 May 2014.
Despite existing laws and privacy enhancing technological methods, the US is progressively taking full advantage of its dominant position not just as the home of companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter but also acknowledging jurisdiction on all websites registered in the US. Therefore, countries such Brazil, Iran, Russia, India and China “are now challenging United States hegemony of the Internet and even calling for the creation of a new governing body to oversee Internet policy” (Brooke, 2012, p.245).
Slowly technology has been disintegrating many aspects of our society, the internet especially. Although the internet has its positive effects such as its wealth of resources it has led to the loss of privacy. For example social networking sites give their users easy access to share information about themselves however, due to the explosion of technology it has made hacking easier to online predators. The government has attempted to help people regain their privacy online by passing the Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997, although this law has been difficult to enforce due to the fast advances in technology and the web. In the novel 1984 by George Orwell, a society described to be constantly watched “Big Brother is watching you” (Orwell 4) , where there is no such thing as privacy or freedom of speech and the government is in control of everything. Orwell in this novel foresees the advancements of technology to be harmful to our future society, if we continue to let our privacy be taken away from us it will make us one step closer to living in a society where the government/large corporations control all.