Professor Eunice Park’s article, “Objects, Places and Cyber-Spaces Post-Carpenter: Extending The Third-Party Doctrine Beyond CSLI: A Consideration of IoT and DNA,” was published by the Yale Journal of Law and Technology. The Article proposes an extended test for the third-party doctrine in the wake of Carpenter v. United States that balances decisional analysis with technological reality, offering a principled framework to encompass the privacy implications of technologies beyond CSLI, and examining the popular consumer technology of smart devices and private genomic testing services as examples.
Professor Eunice Park has published “Protecting the Fourth Amendment After Carpenter in the Digital Age: What Gadget Next?” in the May issue of Orange County Lawyer Magazine. The article notes the tension in the Supreme Court’s previous approaches to protecting personal information and observes that the decision in Carpenter v. United States, expected in June, will have significant repercussions for how lower courts will address other technology-based privacy challenges, including law enforcement’s use of cell-site simulators. In the meantime, the “reasonable expectation of privacy” paradigm appears to be a shifting one, as entire generations are growing up accustomed to sharing their whereabouts, activities and thoughts on social media.
Professor Elizabeth Jones has published “Possible Problems at the San Clemente Checkpoint” in the Virginia Journal of Criminal Law, 6 Va. J. Crim. L. 43 (2018). The Article addresses the interplay between the U.S. Supreme Court law governing the immigration checkpoint program and the new, ever-shifting challenges facing the Border Patrol in administering these checkpoints. It examines recent cases originating from vehicle stops at the San Clemente checkpoint, and queries whether the government has been conducting pretextual stops at this checkpoint, and at others in the southwest border zone, to further a larger, arguably unlawful, agenda.
Professor Eunice Park published “The Elephant in the Room: What is a ‘Nonroutine’ Border Search, Anyway? Digital Device Searches Post-Riley” in the Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 44:3 Hastings Const. L.Q. 277 (2017). The article proposes an approach that obviates distinguishing between routine and nonroutine electronic device border searches, and rethinks the applicability in the digital era of notions of ingress versus egress, and imminent versus ongoing crime, in balancing the tension between law enforcement interests and individual privacy rights.