lawyer bio
Keep in mind that the law is always changing, and some articles may include outdated references or caselaw. Always check with an attorney before acting on what you read. For more, please visit the Disclaimer page
You are reading: Katz is out of the Bag: Katz’s Weaknesses & the Rapidly Emerging Technology of Today and the Future, (2005)
Click here to return to the Articles Page, or return to the Law Office of Robert Keates homepage

 

 

- TABLE OF CONTENTS -

 

Section I – Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………1
Section II – History of the Fourth Amendment & the Evolution of Katz ….…………….4
A.                British Case Law – The Origins of the Fourth Amendment ….…………………4
B.                Pre-Katz Case Law – The Rise of American Property Based Protections ……..6
C.                Katz and the Fall of Property Based Fourth Amendment Protection ………….8
D.                Post Katz Case Law – Katz in the Age of Technology……………………………9
1.                Enhanced Visual Aids ……………………………………………………..10
2.                Aerial Searches………………………………….……………….………..12
3.                Tracking Devices…………………………………….………….…………15
4.                Dog Sniffs……………………………………………………….…………18
5.                Thermal Imaging…………………………………….……………………21
6.                Mass DNA Testing……………………………………..……….…………23
Section III – Developing Technologies and Law Enforcement Devices………..……….26
A.                Facial Recognition Systems…………………………………………….…………27
B.                Concealed Weapon Detectors………………………………………….…………30
C.                Heartbeat Detection Devices……………………………………………..……….31
E.                Passive Alcohol Sensors………………………………………………….……….32
F.                Mass Spectrometry and Gas Chromatography………………………..………..33
Section IV – Katz, Emerging Technologies, and Expectations of Privacy…..…………34
A.                Analysis Under Katz…………………………………………………..…………..35
1.                Facial Recognition Systems.………………………………..……………..35
a.                Traditional Katz Analysis..………………………..……………..36
b.                Neo-Katz Analysis…………...……………….…………………37
2.                Concealed Weapons Detectors……………………….…………………..39
a.                Traditional Katz Analysis……..…………….………………….39
b.                Neo-Katz Analysis………………………..……………………41
c.                Pre-Katz Analysis…………………………………………….41
3.                Heartbeat Detection Devices…………………….…………………….42
a.                Traditional Katz Analysis……………………………………42
b.                Neo-Katz Analysis…………………………………………..43
c.                Pre-Katz Analysis……………………………………………44
4.                Passive Alcohol Testing……………………………………………….45
a.                Traditional Katz Analysis……………………………………45
b.                Neo-Katz Analysis…………………………………………..46
c.                Pre-Katz Analysis………………….………………………..47
5.                Mass Spectrometry and Gas Chromatography………………………48
a.                Traditional Katz Analysis…………………………………..48
b.                Neo-Katz Analysis………………………………………….49
c.                Pre-Katz Analysis…………………………………………..50
B.                General Use Doctrine.………………………………………………………..51
Section V – Conclusion and Final Thoughts…………………………………………….55

 

- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES -

 

CASES

 

Boyd v. United States,116 U.S. 616 (1886)…………………………………………………………………6

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986)……………………………………………………12,13,14,35,59

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000)……………………………………………………….19

Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969)………………………………………………………………37,38

Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986)…………..…….……………………………….15

Entick v. Carrington, 19 Howell's State Trials 1029 (K.B. 1765)……………………..……………………5

Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)………………………………………….………………………..14,15

Fullbright v. United States, 392 F.2d 432 (10th Cir. Okla. 1968)…………………………………………10

Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129 (1942)……………………………..……………………………..7

Illinois v. Caballes, 160 L. Ed. 2d 842 (U.S. 2005)…………………………………………………19,20,40

Ishmael v. United States, 48 F.3d 850 (5th Cir. 1995)………………….…………………………………22

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)……………………………………………………2,8,9,34,35,51

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)……………………………………………………….3,22,23,40

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)………………..…………………………………….6,7,35

People v. Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49 (1982)……………………………………………………………………44

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)…………………………………………………………….25

Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989)……………………………………….25

Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (1961)……………………….……………………………..7,8,48

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)………………………………………………………………………..42,58

Texas v. Brown 460 U.S. 730 (1983)………………………………………………………………………10

Texas v. White, 423 U.S. 67 (1975)……………………………………………………………………….46

The Case of John Wilkes, 19 Howell's State Trials 982 (K.B. 1763)…….………………………………4,5

United States v. Albarado, 495 F.2d. 799 (2d Cir. 1974)………………………………………………….41

United States v. Bell, 464 F.2d 667 (2d Cir.)…………………………..…………………………………41

United States v. Cox, 428 F.2d 683 (7th Cir. Wis. 1970) …………..……………………………………25

United States v Cusumano, 67 F.3d 1497 (10th Cir. 1995)……………………..………………………….22

United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973)…………………………………….……………………..36,37

United States v. Epperson, 454 F.2d 769 (4th Cir. Va. 1972)………..…………..…………………………41

United States v. Emery, 541 F.2d 887(1st Cir. Mass. 1976)……..………….…………………………15,16

United States v. Ford, 34 F.3d 992 (11th Cir. 1995)………………..…….……………………………….22

United States v. Hensel 509 F. Supp. 1376 (D. Me. 1981)……….…….……………………………...11,35

United States v. Kennedy, 131 F.3d 1371 (10th Cir. N.M. 1997)…………………………………………20

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983)……………………………………………………15,17,35,44

United States v. Myers, 46 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 1995)……………………….………………………………22

United States v. Nicolosi, 885 F. Supp. 50 (E.D.N.Y. 1995)………………………………………………26

United States v. Penny-Feeney, 773 F. Supp. 220 (D. Haw. 1991) ……………….………………………22

United States v. Pinson, 24 F.3d 1056 (8th Cir. 1994)………………………….………………………….22

United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983)……………………………………………………………19,40

United States v. Slocum, 464 F.2d. 1180 (3d Cir. 1972)…………………….…………………………….41

United States v. Taborda, 635 F.2d 131 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1980)…………….………………………………..12

Venner v. State, 279 Md. 47 (1977)…………………………………….…………………………………25

Wilkes v. Wood, 19 Howell's State Trials 1153 (K.B. 1973)……………………………………………..4,5

Y.B. 21 Hen. 7, fo. 39, pl. 50 (1499)………………………………………..………………………………4

 

CONSTUTUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

USCS Const. Amend. 4 (2004)…………………………………………………………………………4,35

 

TREATISES AND LEGAL TEXTS

Amsterdam, Perspectives on the Fourth Amendment,
58 Minn. L. Rev. 349 (1974) ………………………………….………………………………………….34

Melissa Arbus, A Legal U-Turn: The Rehnquist Court Changes Direction
and Steers Back to the Privacy Norms of the Warren Era, 89 Va. L. Rev. 1729 (2003)………..30,31,33,40

Rania M. Basha, Kyllo v. United States: The Fourth Amendment
Triumphs Over Technology, 41 Brandeis L.J. 939 (2003). …………………..………………………….22

 

Marc Jonathan Blitz, Video Surveillance and the Constitution of Public
Space: Fitting the Fourth Amendment to a World that Tracks Image and
Identity, 82 Tex. L. Rev. 1349 (2004)……………………………………………………………………27

Peter Joseph Bober, The "Chemical Signature" of the Fourth Amendment: Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry and the War on Drugs,
8 Seton Hall Const. L.J. 75 (1997) (price as of 1997)……………………………………………33,49,51

Sherry F. Colb, What Is a Search? Two Conceptual Flaws in Fourth
Amendment Doctrine and Some Hints of a Remedy, 55 Stan. L. Rev. 119 (2002)………………….…18,23

Mark Curriden, Courts Reject Drug-Tainted Evidence, 79 A.B.A.J. 22, Aug. 1993……………………..50

George M. Dery III, The Loss of Privacy is Just a Heartbeat Away: An Exploration
of Government Heartbeat Detection Technology and its Impact on Fourth
Amendment Protections, 7 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 401 (1999)…………………………………32,42

Fred W. Drobner, DNA Dragnets: Constitutional Aspects of Mass
DNA Identification Testing, 28 Cap. U.L. Rev. 479 (2000)…………………………………………24,25,26

Hope Walker Hall, Sniffing Out the Fourth Amendment:
United States v. Place – Dog Sniffs – Ten Years Later,
46 Me. L. Rev. 151 (1994)………………………………………………………………………………..19

Kim Han, The Technological Sniffing Out of Constitutional Rights: Assessing
the Constitutionally of the Passive Alcohol Sensor III, 9 J.L. & Pol'y 835 (2001)………………………32

David A. Harris, Superman’s X-Ray Vision and the Fourth Amendment:
The New Gun Detection, 69 Temp. L. Rev. 1, (1996)………………………………………………….30,41

Jennifer Hartunian, To Breathe, or Not to Breathe: Passive Alcohol Sensors and
the Fourth Amendment, 39 San Diego L. Rev. 563 (2002)…………………………………………32,33,44

Shannon R. Hurley-Deal, State v. Fisher: Canine Sniffs – Who Let the
Dogs Out?, 26 N.C. Cent. L.J. 47 (2003)…………………………………………………………………..19

Roberto Iraola, Lights, Camera, Action! Surveillance Cameras, Facial Recognition
Systems and the Constitution, 49 Loy. L. Rev. 773 (2003)…………………………………….29,30,32,33

D.H. Kaye, The Constitutionality of DNA Sampling on Arrest,
10 Cornell J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 455 (2001)………………………………………….……………………24

D.H. Kaye & Michael E. Smith, DNA Identification Databases:
 Legality, Legitimacy, and the Case for Population-Wide Coverage,
2003 Wis. L. Rev. 413 (2003)……………………………………………………………………………...24

Orin S. Kerr, The Fourth Amendment and New Technologies: Constitutional
Myths and the Case for Caution, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 801 (2004)………………….………………..51,53,54

Kitch, Katz v. United States, The Limits of the Fourth Amendment,
1968 Sup. Ct. Rev. 133 (1968) …………………………………………………..………………………34

 

 

Raymond Shih Ray Ku, Modern Studies in Privacy Law:
Searching for the Meaning of Fourth Amendment Privacy
After Katz v. United States: The Founders' Privacy:
The Fourth Amendment and the Power of Technological
Surveillance, 86 Minn. L. Rev. 1325 (2002)……………………………………...………………………5,6

Jonathan Todd Laba, If You Can't Stand the Heat, Get Out of the
Drug Business: Thermal Imagers, Emerging Technologies, and
the Fourth Amendment, 84 Cal. L. Rev. 1437 (1996)…………………………..………………………..22

Wayne R. LaFave, 1 Search and Seizure, 2.2(f) (1988)…………………………….…………………….50

David McCormack, Can Corporate America Secure our Nation?  An Analysis
of the Idetex Framework for the Regulation and Use of Facial Recognition
Technology, 9 B.U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 128 (2003)…………………………….………………………28,29

Christopher S. Milligan, Facial Recognition Technology, Video
Surveillance, and Privacy, 9 S. Cal. Interdis. L.J. 295 (1999)………………….………………………30

Susan Moore, Comment: Does Heat Emanate Beyond the Threshold?:
Home Based Infrared Emissions, Remote Sensing, and the Fourth
Amendment Threshold, 70 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 803 (1994)……………………….…………………….6,22

Alexander T. Nguyen, Here's Looking at you, Kid: Has Face-Recognition
Technology Completely Outflanked The Fourth Amendment?,
7 Va. J. L. & Tech. 2 2002)……………………………………………………………………………….28

Laura B. Riley, Concealed Weapon Detectors and the Fourth Amendment: The
Constitutionality of Remote Sense-Enhanced Searches, 45 UCLA L. Rev. 281 (1997)………………..30,31

Alyson L. Rosenberg, Passive Millimeter Wave Imaging: A New Weapon in
the Fight Against Crime or a Fourth Amendment Violation?,
9 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 135 (1998). ……………………………………………………….……………..31

Christopher Slobogin and Joseph Schmacher, Reasonable Expectations of
Privacy and Autonomy in Fourth Amendment Cases: An Empirical Look at
“Understandings Recognized and Permitted by Society”, 42 Duke L.J. 727 (1993)…..……………18,27,58

Robert H. Thornburg, Facial Recognition Technology: The Potential
Orwellian Implications and Constitutionality of Current Uses under
the Fourth Amendment, 20 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 321 2002)……………………..27,28,29

 

NEWSPAPERS, MAGAZINES, AND REPORTS

Jeff Brazil and Steve Berry, You May Be Drug Free, But is Your Money?,
Orlando Sentinel Trib., June 15, 1992, at A6…………………………………………….…………..50

Lesley Stahl, Does the Nose Know? 60 Minutes, January 4, 2004,
available at https://www.cbsnews.com /stories/2004/01/05/60minutes/main591477.shtml………………20

DNA role in BTK suspect's arrest questioned, CNN, February 28, 2005, available at https://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/28/btk.investigation/index.html…………………………....…………25

Google unveils satellite map feature, CNN, April 5, 2005, available at https://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/04/05/google.maps.ap/index.html……………....……………1

Report: DNA found in judge's home, but doesn't match data, USA Today,
March 8, 2005, available at
https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-08-judge-bodies_x.htm……………….....…………….25

Camera Phone Zone, X-Ray Camera Phone Sees through Clothes,
October 25, 2004, available at htp://www.livingroom.org.au/cameraphone/
archives/xray_camera_phone_sees_through_clothes.php…………………………………………………40

 

INTERNET WEBSITES

 

Orin Kerr, Dog Sniff Precedent Reaffirmed, The Volokh Conspiracy
Online Blog, January 24, 2005, at https://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_01_21.shtml#1106585518……………………………20,21

PAS Systems International Alcohol Sensor Systems, at https://www.pasintl.com/200.html….....…………33

James "Agg" Rolfe, TimeWarp Computer Prices, August 4, 2004, at https://www.overclockers.com.au/article.php?id=296910……………………………………....…………..52

Spy World, at https://www.spyworld.com/Track.htm………………………………………....……………15

Spys [sic] Like Us: An Airtight Security Company, at https://www.airtightinvestigations.com/surveillance_equipment.html……………………..………………15

https://www.airport-technology.com/contractors/security/thermo/thermo2.ht…………..………………….33

https://www.airtightinvestigations.com/countersurveillance.html…………………………..………………53

https://www.biometricinfodirectory.com/………………………………………………….……………….52

https://www.cbi-pace.com/ncrl.htm……………………………………………………………………..48,50

https://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.htm………………………………….………………..52

https://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/12/26/102308.shtml………………….……………….27

https://www.neurotechnologija.com/cgi-bin/prices.cgi#vl…………………………………….…………..52

https://www.pasintl.com/analyzers.htm……………………………………………………………………32

https://www.pasintl.com/304.htm………………………………………………………………………….48

https://www.spysource.net/countermeasures.htm………………………………………………………….52

 

All internet links were last checked April 20th, 2005.

Law Office of Robert Keates

700 Lavaca, Suite 1400 Austin, TX 512-761-5297
Austin Law Firm handling Misdemeanor and Felony Criminal Cases 10 out of 10 based on 6 reviews

Warning: include_once(): https:// wrapper is disabled in the server configuration by allow_url_include=0 in /home/keatzlw5/public_html/lawofficeofrobertkeates.com/criminal-law-FAQ/legal-research/articles/katz-privacy-rights-toc.php on line 283

Warning: include_once(https://www.lawofficeofrobertkeates.com/scripts/main.php): failed to open stream: no suitable wrapper could be found in /home/keatzlw5/public_html/lawofficeofrobertkeates.com/criminal-law-FAQ/legal-research/articles/katz-privacy-rights-toc.php on line 283

Warning: include_once(): Failed opening 'https://www.lawofficeofrobertkeates.com/scripts/main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/keatzlw5/public_html/lawofficeofrobertkeates.com/criminal-law-FAQ/legal-research/articles/katz-privacy-rights-toc.php on line 283