tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post2775567226206897601..comments2023-12-12T03:19:42.467-05:00Comments on CYB3RCRIM3: KylloSusan Brennerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-49223460265394071582008-07-15T09:50:00.000-04:002008-07-15T09:50:00.000-04:00It's a good idea, but it probably won't work.In se...It's a good idea, but it probably won't work.<BR/><BR/>In several decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that state laws do not define the contours of the 4th Amendment . . . which actually makes sense. If State A were to adopt a law like this and if the law were to establish a 4th Amendment expectation of privacy in this context, it would mean that there was a DIFFERENT 4th Amendment standard in that state . . . and in every other state that adopted similar laws or other laws that heightened search requirements.<BR/><BR/>Having said that, it seems to me that statutes like that should be factored in when a court is trying to decide whether or someone's expectation that something (like email) is private. The Court has done something like that in the past, when deciding on the exclusionary rule, for example, so it might be useful, anyway.Susan Brennerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-7369085712414413212008-07-14T22:32:00.000-04:002008-07-14T22:32:00.000-04:00Q: Let’s say a state legislature enacted a crimin...Q: Let’s say a state legislature enacted a criminal surveillance law similar to a peeping tom law disallowing anyone from using these intrusive devices to spy on their neighbors. Would that then grant all the citizens of that state a reasonable expectation of privacy and disallow the police from using it without a warrant?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329202714772594323noreply@blogger.com