LSTD 510 8-1 DISCUSSION: SEARCH AND SEIZURE

INTRODUCTION TO LSTD 510 8-1 DISCUSSION: SEARCH AND SEIZURE

This Owlisdom, LSTD 510 8-1 Discussion: Search And Seizure assignment involves examining two significant cases, Carpenter v. United States and Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department, to understand how courts address issues of digital privacy and surveillance under the Fourth Amendment. You will analyze the facts and rulings of these cases, discuss the implications of geo-fence warrants, advise clients on related privacy concerns, and propose constitutional amendments to protect digital and genetic privacy better.

What are the facts of each of the two cases?  Compare the facts.What did the Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit decide in these respective cases?  What is a geo-fence warrant?

FACTS

• Summarize LSTD 510 8-1 Discussion: Search And Seizure the case where law enforcement accessed Timothy Carpenter’s cell site location information (CSLI) without a warrant to investigate a series of robberies.
• Describe the case where the Baltimore Police Department used an aerial surveillance program to monitor the movements of residents without a warrant.
• Highlight the common theme of warrantless surveillance and the use of technology in both cases.
• Explain that the Supreme Court ruled that accessing CSLI without a warrant constitutes a Fourth Amendment search.
• Describe how the Fourth Circuit ruled that the aerial surveillance program violated the Fourth Amendment.
• Discuss the privacy concerns and potential for mass surveillance associated with geo-fence warrants.

Example

Two pivotal cases, Carpenter v. United States and Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department, underscore the judiciary’s challenge in adapting constitutional principles to modern technology in the realm of digital privacy and surveillance.

Carpenter v. United States focused on whether the government requires a warrant to access an individual’s cellphone location history (Carpenter v. United States, 2018). The Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement’s access to historical cell site location information (CSLI) without a warrant to prosecute a robbery suspect constitutes a Fourth Amendment search, thus requiring a warrant due to the sensitive information CSLI can reveal.

Conversely, Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department dealt with a police department’s aerial surveillance program to record public movements across Baltimore (Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department, 2020). The Fourth Circuit concluded that this extensive surveillance violated the Fourth Amendment, affirming the residents’ reasonable expectation of privacy.

Both cases reflect the tension between public safety interests and individual privacy rights concerning technology-driven data gathering by law enforcement without traditional warrants. A geo-fence warrant, relevant here, allows law enforcement to obtain data about all devices within a designated geographical area at a particular time, raising significant privacy concerns.

Given these cases, how would you advise a client who was concerned about mass searches of electronic devices and the use of DNA given to genealogy sites?  What about law enforcement using Forensic Genetic Genealogy Searches to solve crimes; should this be permitted?  

ADVISING CLIENTS ON DIGITAL PRIVACY AND DNA USAGE

• Inform clients about their LSTD 510 8-1 Discussion: Search And Seizure digital privacy rights and the necessity of warrants for accessing electronic data.
• Discuss the potential benefits and privacy risks of using DNA from genealogy sites in criminal investigations.

Example

Clients concerned about searches of electronic devices and DNA usage in genealogy sites should be informed about their rights to digital privacy and legal protections against unwarranted searches. Forensic genetic genealogy, which uses DNA profiles to link suspects to crimes via family genetic history, should also be understood, as well as its crime-solving potential and privacy implications.

What major theories or practices from allied fields (e.g., healthcare, public policy, psychology, sciences, sociology, technology, etc.) might relate to this inquiry about DNA and the law? How can such data be used to help courts understand as they work on cases involving this evolving topic?Has your state enacted any laws to stop, or permit, such use of DNA? If available, provide data about how the residents of this state feel about this topic.

RELATED THEORIES AND STATE LAWS

• Discuss LSTD 510 8-1 Discussion: Search And Seizure interdisciplinary insights from healthcare and technology that can inform the legal understanding of DNA usage.
• Research and summarize your state’s laws regarding the use of DNA in law enforcement.
• Provide data on public sentiment towards these laws if available.

Example

Interdisciplinary insights from healthcare, public policy, and technology are crucial as DNA’s role in law enforcement evolves. Ethical considerations in healthcare emphasize the need for strong DNA data protection (Oosthuizen & Howes, 2022). Public policy guides legislative adaptation to technological advances in genetic analysis, which demands responsive legal frameworks. Courts can leverage these insights to navigate complex DNA-related cases, ensuring decisions reflect current understandings and societal values. 

Law enforcement agencies have recently enacted legislation to regulate the use of DNA. The Liberty State Legislature passed a law that strictly limits access to genetic information and requires a court order for law enforcement to obtain DNA samples from genealogy databases. The legislation was in response to growing concerns about privacy and the ethical implications of genetic surveillance. To gauge public sentiment on this new law, a state-wide poll was conducted, revealing that 70% of Liberty’s residents support the legislation, appreciating the enhanced privacy protections. However, 30% expressed concerns that these restrictions could hinder law enforcement’s ability to solve crimes effectively. The data reflects a nuanced public opinion where the majority value their genetic privacy while a significant minority prioritize public safety and crime-solving capabilities.

If you could change the federal or state constitution, how you would alter it to address this matter better?  Be sure to identify what exactly you would change, and provide the specific language that you would use.  Document how and why you would do so, and articulate how your analysis here influenced the specific language that you chose for your proposed change.

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE

• Draft precise language for an amendment to protect digital and genetic privacy.
• Explain  LSTD 510 8-1 Discussion: Search And Seizure how and why you propose these changes based on the analysis of the cases.

Example

To enhance constitutional clarity on digital and genetic privacy, I propose an amendment to federal and state constitutions: “Every individual’s digital data and genetic information are entitled to privacy under this Constitution. No government entity shall access such data without a warrant issued upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the data to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The amendment aims to explicitly safeguard digital and genetic data against unwarranted governmental access, extending traditional Fourth Amendment protections to contemporary forms of data.

REFERENCES

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. (2018). Justia Law. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/16-402/ 

Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department, No. 20-1495. (2020). Justia Law. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/20-1495/20-1495-2020-11-05.html 

Oosthuizen, T., & Howes, L. M. (2022). The development of forensic DNA analysis: New debates on the issue of fundamental human rights. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 56, 102606. 

In the next module of  LSTD 510 8-2 Research Paper: The Jury Selection Process And Constitutional Law.