Volume 14

Jun
13

The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Jones clearly established that use of GPS tracking surveillance constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. But the Court left many other questions unanswered about the nature and scope of the constitutional privacy right in location data. A review of lower court decisions in the wake of

Jun
13

In United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the proposition that the Government can surreptitiously electronically track vehicle location for an entire month without Fourth Amendment restraint. While the Court’s three opinions leave much uncertain, in one perspective they fit nicely within a long string of cases in which the Court is cautiously

Jun
13

While the Jones Court held unanimously that the Government’s use of a GPS device to track Antoine Jones’s vehicle for twenty-eight days was a Fourth Amendment search, the Justices disagreed on the facts and rationale supporting the holding. Beyond the very narrow trespass-based search theory regulating the Government’s attachment of a GPS device to Jones’s

Jun
01

Virtual K–12 education, roughly defined as electronically-mediated teaching and learning for children, has expanded dramatically in the past decade. In December 2012, the Federal Trade Commission approved its first amendments to its original Rule implementing the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. These changes aim to strengthen the regulation over website operators and application developers to

Jun
01

Attorneys’ fees and sanctions awarded by trial courts in exceptional patent cases are routinely assessed in millions of dollars. The Federal Circuit is the sole appellate authority in patent cases and thus has the responsibility of reviewing these high-stakes determinations. In Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc., a 2-1 majority fundamentally shifted the

Jun
01

Electronic communication technology has seamlessly woven itself into the fabric of individuals’ daily lives. Technology’s rapid evolution and continuous advancement has made it possible for more people to enjoy access to devices that facilitate electronic communications. Technology’s progression, however, is starkly contrasted against the law’s inability to keep pace. Garcia v. City of Laredo highlights

Categories