The law of "search and seizure" in the United States derives primarily from United States Supreme Court decisions construing the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which requires that "searches" of "houses, persons, papers and effects" be "reasonable" and that judicial warrants authorizing searches be based on "probable cause" to believe evidence will be found. Over the past 200 years, the Fourth Amendment's guarantees have been interpreted largely in the context of what might be called "physical searches" - entry into a house or car; a stop and frisk of a person on the street; or rifling through a person's private papers. But today, with the introduction of devices that can see through walls and clothes, monitor public thoroughfares twenty-four hours a day, and access millions of records in seconds, police are relying much more heavily on what might be called "virtual searches," investigative techniques that do not require physical access to premises, people, papers or effects and that can often be carried out covertly from far away. The Supreme Court's current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence - specifically, its "knowing exposure," "general public use," "con-rntraband-specific," "assumption of risk" and "special needs" doctrines - has both failed to anticipate this development and continued to ignore it, with the result that most virtual searches are left unregulated by the Constitution. This article describes this jurisprudence and how it can foster law enforcement abuse, mission creep, mistaken seizures and physical searches, and an oppressive atmosphere even for the innocent. It then outlines a more technologically-sensitive Fourth Amendment framework. It proposes that every government effort to look for evidence of crime require some justification, but only in proportion to its intrusiveness, so that a computer search of a person's personal records, like a search of a house, would require probable cause, but technologically-enhanced tracking of a person's public movements, like a physical stop on the streets, could be justified on a lesser showing. The article also proposes a framework for analyzing searches of groups, including large-scale data-mining and use of public camera surveillance systems, that would not require individualized suspicion, but rather look at whether the group search is (1) authorized by a legislative process to which the affected group had meaningful access and (2) is conducted in a manner that eliminates discretion.%Wir befinden uns im Jahr 2015. Officer Jones, ein New Yorker Stadtpolizist, hält ein Auto wegen eines defekten Rücklichts an. Es stellt sich heraus, dass der Fahrer des Wagens ein Mann namens Ahmad Abdullah ist. Abdullahs Führerschein und der Fahrzeugschein sind in Ordnung, aber Abdullah macht - zumindest auf Jones - einen nervösen Eindruck. Jones geht zu seinem Streifenwagen zurück und aktiviert seinen elektromagnetischen Impulsscanner der Marke Raytheon, der das Fahrzeug auf Waffen und Bomben hin scannen kann. Auf dem Bildschirm ist nichts zu erkennen. Dennoch bringt Jones einen GPS-Peilsender (sog. Q-Ball) unter der hinteren Stoßstange an, während er vorgibt, Abdullahs Nummernschild zu untersuchen.
展开▼
机译：美国的“搜查和扣押”法主要源于构成《美国宪法》第四修正案的美国最高法院的裁决，该裁决要求对“房屋，人，纸张和物品”进行“搜查”是“合理的”。以及授权进行搜查的司法令是基于“可能的原因”，以便相信会找到证据。在过去的200年中，第四修正案的保证在很大程度上是在所谓的“身体搜查”的背景下进行解释的-进入房屋或汽车；一个人在街上的停顿和抽动；或浏览一个人的私人文件。但是如今，随着设备的出现，它们可以穿透墙壁和衣服，每天监视二十四小时的公共通道，并在几秒钟内访问数百万条记录，因此警察越来越依赖于所谓的“虚拟搜索”。不需要物理访问房屋，人员，纸张或物品的调查技术，通常可以在很远的地方秘密进行。最高法院目前的《第四修正案》判例-特别是其“了解接触”，“一般公共用途”，“特定于违禁品”，“承担风险”和“特殊需要”的学说-都未能预料到这种发展，继续忽略它，结果是大多数虚拟搜索不受宪法的约束。本文介绍了该判例，以及它如何助长了执法人员的滥用，特派团任务的蔓延，错误的扣押和搜身，甚至给无辜者带来压抑的气氛。然后概述了对技术更敏感的第四修正案框架。它建议，政府为寻找犯罪证据所做的一切努力都需要一定的理由，但要与其侵扰性成正比，因此，对计算机上的个人记录进行搜索，例如对房屋的搜索，都需要可能的原因，但从技术上讲，较小的展示可以证明对某人的公共运动进行更好的跟踪，例如在大街上的物理停车。本文还提出了一个分析群体搜索的框架，包括大规模数据挖掘和使用公共摄像头监控系统，这些框架不需要个人怀疑，而是要查看群体搜索是否（1）由立法授权受影响的群体可以从中获得有意义的机会，并且（2）采用消除酌处权的方式进行。％Wil befinden uns im Jahr2015。纽约市人民警察局局长琼斯（Jones Jones），纽约州立政治家，汽车与汽车制造商DeinetenRücklichtsand。埃斯特尔·希拉乌斯（Es Stellt Sich Heraus），达斯·法赫勒·德·瓦根斯（East Mann）命名艾哈迈德·阿卜杜拉（Ahmad Abdullah ist）。 AbdullahsFührerschein和der Fahrzeugschein在奥伯（Ordnung）犯罪，阿卜杜拉（Abdullah）马赫-祖敏斯特·奥夫·琼斯（Zumindest auf Jones）-艾因·恩弗洛森（EinennervösenEindruck）。琼斯·盖茨·塞纳姆·斯特雷芬瓦根·祖鲁克和马克西蒙·雷神的冲动扫描仪，法夫热格·瓦芬和博本·辛普森·坎恩。 Auf dem Bildschirm ist nichts zu erkennen。丹诺赫（Dennoch）带来了琼斯·艾因（Jones einen）的GPS-皮尔森（GPS-Peilsender）（例如Q-Ball），他的后腿是斯托斯托斯坦（Stoßstange），前锋是阿卜杜拉（Abdullahs Nummernschild）。
展开▼
