Escaping Fourth Amendment Doctrine After Jones: Physics, Law, and Privacy Protection

Jim Harper
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4692926
2024-01-01
SSRN Electronic Journal
Abstract:The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Jones, holding long-term, warrantless tracking via a global positioning system (GPS) device unconstitutional, was a potential watershed in the development of Fourth Amendment law because it has put the law into a state of flux. The doctrine that has dominated judicial and popular thinking about constitutional privacy protections is open to badly needed revision. Instead of guessing at "reasonable expectations," the Court should return to natural-language definitions of "search" and "seizure" that can resolve both common and "high-tech" Fourth Amendment cases. The majority and concurrence in Jones shared the goal of preserving the level of privacy that Americans enjoyed at the time of the Fourth Amendment’s adoption. This goal will only be judicially administrable if courts recognize what privacy is and how people protect it. Privacy is the condition people enjoy when they can control information about themselves and when they exercise that control consistent with their interests and values. Since long before the late 18th century, people have protected privacy by preventing others from perceiving things that reveal personal information. People literally use physics, blocking others’ access to the photons, sound waves, particulates, and surfaces that reveal themselves and the things about them. Laws such as property, battery, and contract back the physics of privacy protection. Rather than focusing on "reasonable expectations" and trying to reason backward from social surmise to constitutional protection, courts after Jones should reason forward. A thing is exposed if physics and law allow an observer to perceive it. If it is not exposed, it takes a search or seizure (often both) to reveal it. Natural and conventional legal language, not "expectations," should determine whether there has been a "search" or "seizure." When government agents have conducted searches or seizures, courts should determine whether or not they were reasonable, which often means getting a warrant. This framework for analysis captures both common cases and the thoroughly modern problems that arise with digital computing and communications. It also returns courts to examining facts and law in Fourth Amendment cases, dispensing with broad societal judgments about privacy "expectations."
What problem does this paper attempt to address?