Surveillance And Criminal Law Research
I. Overview: What Is Surveillance in Criminal Law?
Surveillance in the context of criminal law refers to the monitoring or observation of individuals by the government (usually law enforcement) to gather evidence or prevent crime. This includes:
Physical surveillance (watching or following suspects)
Wiretapping and audio surveillance
Video and camera surveillance
GPS and location tracking
Digital surveillance (emails, phone records, social media, metadata)
The key legal issue is whether such surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
II. Key Legal Questions
Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy?
Was a search or seizure conducted without a warrant?
Does an exception (like exigent circumstances or consent) apply?
Are new technologies (like GPS or metadata collection) covered by the Fourth Amendment?
III. Landmark Cases on Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment
1. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Facts:
The FBI placed a listening device outside a public phone booth to record Katz’s conversations without a warrant.
Issue:
Does the Fourth Amendment protect a person’s conversations in a public phone booth?
Holding:
Yes. The Court ruled that “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.”
Significance:
Established the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test.
Expanded the Fourth Amendment beyond physical trespass.
Required law enforcement to obtain a warrant for electronic surveillance.
2. United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)
Facts:
Police attached a GPS tracking device to Jones's car without a valid warrant and tracked his movements for 28 days.
Issue:
Does GPS tracking without a warrant constitute an unconstitutional search?
Holding:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that this was a physical trespass on private property, violating the Fourth Amendment.
Significance:
Revived the trespass theory of the Fourth Amendment.
Reinforced that long-term location tracking invades privacy.
Later cases extended protection to cell phone location data.
3. Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___ (2018)
Facts:
Police obtained historical cell phone location records without a warrant to place Carpenter at the scene of several robberies.
Issue:
Does accessing historical cell phone location data without a warrant violate the Fourth Amendment?
Holding:
Yes. The Court ruled that individuals have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their location data.
Significance:
Limited the third-party doctrine (that sharing data with a third party eliminates privacy rights).
Required warrants for cell site location data (CSLI).
4. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
Facts:
Federal agents wiretapped telephone lines outside of Olmstead’s home and used the recordings to convict him of bootlegging.
Issue:
Was wiretapping without physical trespass a Fourth Amendment violation?
Holding:
No. The Court upheld the conviction, saying there was no physical intrusion.
Significance:
Later overruled by Katz, but was a key early case in the evolution of surveillance law.
5. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Facts:
A police officer stopped and frisked three men without a warrant or probable cause, suspecting they were planning a robbery.
Issue:
Was the stop-and-frisk without a warrant or probable cause constitutional?
Holding:
Yes. The Court ruled that limited searches (Terry stops) are permissible with reasonable suspicion.
Significance:
Introduced the concept of "stop and frisk".
Affects physical surveillance in public.
Balances police safety and constitutional protections.
6. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)
Facts:
Law enforcement used thermal imaging to detect heat patterns (suggestive of marijuana grow lights) inside Kyllo’s home—without a warrant.
Issue:
Does using thermal imaging technology without a warrant to detect activity inside a home violate the Fourth Amendment?
Holding:
Yes. The Court held that using sense-enhancing technology to observe the interior of a home constitutes a search.
Significance:
Set limits on technology-assisted surveillance.
Reinforced that the home has the highest expectation of privacy.
7. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
Facts:
Police used a pen register (device to record dialed phone numbers) without a warrant.
Issue:
Does collecting dialed phone numbers without a warrant violate the Fourth Amendment?
Holding:
No. The Court found that users have no expectation of privacy in phone numbers dialed and shared with the phone company.
Significance:
Major third-party doctrine case.
Relied upon until Carpenter limited its application.
IV. Summary: Legal Doctrines in Surveillance Cases
| Legal Concept | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Reasonable Expectation of Privacy | Established in Katz; key to determining if a search occurred. |
| Third-Party Doctrine | No privacy expectation in info shared with third parties (Smith v. Maryland), but limited in Carpenter. |
| Warrant Requirement | Most surveillance requires a warrant unless an exception (e.g., Terry) applies. |
| Trespass Theory | Physical intrusion onto property may violate Fourth Amendment (Jones). |
| Technology and Privacy | Use of advanced technology to invade privacy often requires a warrant (Kyllo, Carpenter). |
V. Conclusion
Surveillance law is constantly evolving to keep up with technological advancements and privacy concerns. Courts have increasingly recognized the need to protect personal data and digital footprints, especially as government surveillance capabilities expand. The line between effective law enforcement and constitutional rights is delicate, and these cases illustrate how the courts have tried to draw that line.
RELATED Blog
0 comments