September 10, 2019
Protecting Elites: An Alternate Take on How US v. Jones Fits into the Court’s Technology Jurisprudence
This Article argues that the Supreme Court’s technology jurisprudence can be best understood as protecting the privacy interest of elites. After providing an overview of the major technology cases from Olmstead to Kyllo, the Article focuses on the recent case of United States v Jones. The Article does not contend that the Court intended to
Tamara Rice Lave, Protecting Elites: An Alternate Take on How US v. Jones Fits into the Court's Technology Jurisprudence, 14 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 461 (2013), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/12_Lave_Final_14.2.pdf
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
Susan Freiwald, The "Davis" Good Faith Rule and Getting Answers to Questions "Jones" Left Open, 14 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 341 (2013), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/9_Freiwald_Final_14.2.pdf.
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
Stephen E. Henderson, After US v. Jones, After the Fourth Amendment Third Party Doctrine, 14 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 431 (2013), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/11_Henderson_Final_14.2.pdf.
A Shattered Looking Glass: The Pitfalls and Potential of the Mosaic Theory of Fourth Amendment Privacy
On January 23, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark non-decision in United States v. Jones. In that case, officers used a GPS-enabled device to track a suspect’s public movements for four weeks, amassing a considerable amount of data in the process. Although ultimately resolved on narrow grounds, five Justices joined concurring opinions in
David Gray & Danielle Keats Citron, A Shattered Looking Glass: The Pitfalls and Potential of the Mosaic Theory of Fourth Amendment Privacy, 14 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 381 (2013), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/10_GrayCitron_Final_14.2.pdf.
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
Stephanie K. Pell, "Jones"ing for Privacy Mandate, Getting a Technology Fix - Doctrine to Follow, 14 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 489 (2013), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/13_Pell_Final_14.2.pdf.
This Article argues that supporters and detractors of the concurring opinions in United States v. Jones have overemphasized the role of the “mosaic” or “aggregation” theory in the concurrences. This has led to a misreading of those opinions, an overly narrow view of the Justices’ privacy concerns, and an obscuring of two limiting principles that
Priscilla J. Smith, Much Ado About Mosaics: How Original Principles Apply to Evolving Technology in US v. Jones, 14 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 557 (2013), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/14_Smith_Final_14.2.pdf.
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
David R. Hostetler & Seiko F. Okada, Recent Development, Virtual Solutions of the Amended Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Rule, N.C. J.L. & Tech. On. 167 (2013), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Hostetler-Okada_Final.pdf.
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
Kenneth Jennings, Recent Development, The Highmark Fracture, 14 N.C. J.L. & Tech. On. 301 (2013), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Jennings_Final.pdf.
In 2011, the prominent women’s shoe designer Christian Louboutin took fashion competitor Yves Saint Laurent to court to protect a trademark of Louboutin’s red-lacquered shoe sole design. To the industry’s surprise, the district court ruled that an entity in the fashion industry could never trademark a single-color feature because the use of a single color
Kaitlin Powers, Recent Development, Saving Soles: The Limited Practical Application of Christian Louboutin v. Yves Saint Laurent, 14 N.C. J.L. & Tech. On. 335 (2013), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Powers_Final.pdf.
Stealing Glances: Electronic Communications Privacy and the Necessity for New Legislation in the Digital Age
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
Laura Arredondo-Santisteban, Recent Development, Stealing Glances: Electronic Communications Privacy and the Necessity for New Legislation in the Digital Age, 14 N.C. J.L. & Tech. On. 205 (2013), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Arredondo_Final.pdf.
The North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology has adopted the Open Access Program, a part of the Scholar’s Copyright Project created by Science Commons. Authors designate the conditions under which their articles are licensed. By downloading articles, you agree to comply with the license terms specified. Please contact NC JOLT at firstname.lastname@example.org with permissions inquiries.