无人机游戏:掷骰子与无人驾驶飞行器和隐私

Rebecca L. Scharf
{"title":"无人机游戏:掷骰子与无人驾驶飞行器和隐私","authors":"Rebecca L. Scharf","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2929104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article offers a practical three-part test for courts and law enforcement to utilize when faced with drone and privacy issues. Specifically addressing the question: how should courts analyze the Fourth Amendment’s protection against ‘unreasonable searches’ in the context of drones? The Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence produced an intricate framework to address issues arising out of the intersection of technology and privacy interests. In prominent decisions, including United States v. Katz, California v. Ciraolo, Kyllo v. United States, and most notably, United States v. Jones, the Court focused on whether the use of a single technology, such as the use of photography, audio recording, heat sensors, or GPS violated an individual’s Fourth Amendment right to privacy. But now, one of the most complex and innovative technological advances in recent years, the unmanned aerial vehicle, or drone, has created an especially difficult issue for courts. Because a single drone can be fitted with multiple technologies, courts need to employ a multidimensional analysis to determine whether an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights have been violated. Thus, with technology advancing quicker than the Court can address, lower courts are left without direction on how to handle this important constitutional quandary, leaving individual right to privacy vulnerable. This Article builds on other scholars’ work promoting a “technology-based” definition of what constitutes a search, by creating a three-factor test for courts to utilize when faced with a drone privacy issue. Specifically arguing that courts should apply a presumption that a warrant is necessary absent exigent circumstances when law enforcement uses drones to survey an individual’s home or curtilage by considering: 1) What type of technology is the drone employing in the search, 2) What is the extent of the surveillance?; and 3) What is the extent of the privacy interference? No longer are the days of addressing the use of a singular technology, as courts will soon, if not already, be inundated with cases involving the intersection of multiple technologies through the use of drones and privacy. Although other scholarship explores drones and privacy concerns, this Article is novel in that it offers a practical approach for courts and law enforcement to utilize, while offering the historical framework for each factor. Guiding courts and law enforcement to handle privacy concerns with the use of drones will provide a structured and approachable analysis that can apply regardless of the drone-in-question’s capabilities and the amount of technologies used.","PeriodicalId":83442,"journal":{"name":"Utah law review","volume":"2018 1","pages":"457-502"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Game of Drones: Rolling the Dice with Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Privacy\",\"authors\":\"Rebecca L. Scharf\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2929104\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Article offers a practical three-part test for courts and law enforcement to utilize when faced with drone and privacy issues. Specifically addressing the question: how should courts analyze the Fourth Amendment’s protection against ‘unreasonable searches’ in the context of drones? The Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence produced an intricate framework to address issues arising out of the intersection of technology and privacy interests. In prominent decisions, including United States v. Katz, California v. Ciraolo, Kyllo v. United States, and most notably, United States v. Jones, the Court focused on whether the use of a single technology, such as the use of photography, audio recording, heat sensors, or GPS violated an individual’s Fourth Amendment right to privacy. But now, one of the most complex and innovative technological advances in recent years, the unmanned aerial vehicle, or drone, has created an especially difficult issue for courts. Because a single drone can be fitted with multiple technologies, courts need to employ a multidimensional analysis to determine whether an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights have been violated. Thus, with technology advancing quicker than the Court can address, lower courts are left without direction on how to handle this important constitutional quandary, leaving individual right to privacy vulnerable. This Article builds on other scholars’ work promoting a “technology-based” definition of what constitutes a search, by creating a three-factor test for courts to utilize when faced with a drone privacy issue. Specifically arguing that courts should apply a presumption that a warrant is necessary absent exigent circumstances when law enforcement uses drones to survey an individual’s home or curtilage by considering: 1) What type of technology is the drone employing in the search, 2) What is the extent of the surveillance?; and 3) What is the extent of the privacy interference? No longer are the days of addressing the use of a singular technology, as courts will soon, if not already, be inundated with cases involving the intersection of multiple technologies through the use of drones and privacy. Although other scholarship explores drones and privacy concerns, this Article is novel in that it offers a practical approach for courts and law enforcement to utilize, while offering the historical framework for each factor. Guiding courts and law enforcement to handle privacy concerns with the use of drones will provide a structured and approachable analysis that can apply regardless of the drone-in-question’s capabilities and the amount of technologies used.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83442,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Utah law review\",\"volume\":\"2018 1\",\"pages\":\"457-502\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Utah law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2929104\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Utah law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2929104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文为法院和执法部门在面对无人机和隐私问题时提供了一个实用的三部分测试。具体解决的问题是:法院应该如何在无人机的背景下分析第四修正案对“不合理搜查”的保护?最高法院第四修正案的判例产生了一个复杂的框架来解决技术和隐私利益交叉产生的问题。在一些重要的判决中,包括美国诉卡茨案、加州诉Ciraolo案、Kyllo诉美国案,以及最引人注目的美国诉琼斯案,最高法院关注的是,使用摄影、录音、热传感器或GPS等单一技术是否侵犯了第四修正案规定的个人隐私权。但现在,近年来最复杂、最具创新性的技术进步之一——无人驾驶飞行器(无人机)给法院带来了一个特别棘手的问题。由于一架无人机可以安装多种技术,法院需要采用多维分析来确定个人的第四修正案权利是否受到侵犯。因此,随着技术进步的速度超过了最高法院的解决能力,下级法院在如何处理这一重要的宪法困境方面没有方向,使个人隐私权变得脆弱。本文以其他学者的工作为基础,通过创建法院在面临无人机隐私问题时使用的三因素测试,促进了“基于技术”的搜索定义。具体地说,当执法部门使用无人机调查个人的家或宅邸时,法院应该在没有紧急情况的情况下适用搜查令的假设,并考虑:1)无人机在搜索中使用的是什么类型的技术,2)监视的范围是什么?3)侵犯隐私的程度如何?处理单一技术使用的日子已经一去不复返了,因为法院很快就会(如果不是已经)被涉及多种技术通过使用无人机和隐私交叉的案件淹没。尽管其他学术研究探讨了无人机和隐私问题,但这篇文章的新颖之处在于,它为法院和执法部门提供了一种实用的方法,同时为每个因素提供了历史框架。指导法院和执法部门处理使用无人机的隐私问题,将提供结构化和易接近的分析,无论无人机的能力和使用的技术数量如何,都可以应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Game of Drones: Rolling the Dice with Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Privacy
This Article offers a practical three-part test for courts and law enforcement to utilize when faced with drone and privacy issues. Specifically addressing the question: how should courts analyze the Fourth Amendment’s protection against ‘unreasonable searches’ in the context of drones? The Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence produced an intricate framework to address issues arising out of the intersection of technology and privacy interests. In prominent decisions, including United States v. Katz, California v. Ciraolo, Kyllo v. United States, and most notably, United States v. Jones, the Court focused on whether the use of a single technology, such as the use of photography, audio recording, heat sensors, or GPS violated an individual’s Fourth Amendment right to privacy. But now, one of the most complex and innovative technological advances in recent years, the unmanned aerial vehicle, or drone, has created an especially difficult issue for courts. Because a single drone can be fitted with multiple technologies, courts need to employ a multidimensional analysis to determine whether an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights have been violated. Thus, with technology advancing quicker than the Court can address, lower courts are left without direction on how to handle this important constitutional quandary, leaving individual right to privacy vulnerable. This Article builds on other scholars’ work promoting a “technology-based” definition of what constitutes a search, by creating a three-factor test for courts to utilize when faced with a drone privacy issue. Specifically arguing that courts should apply a presumption that a warrant is necessary absent exigent circumstances when law enforcement uses drones to survey an individual’s home or curtilage by considering: 1) What type of technology is the drone employing in the search, 2) What is the extent of the surveillance?; and 3) What is the extent of the privacy interference? No longer are the days of addressing the use of a singular technology, as courts will soon, if not already, be inundated with cases involving the intersection of multiple technologies through the use of drones and privacy. Although other scholarship explores drones and privacy concerns, this Article is novel in that it offers a practical approach for courts and law enforcement to utilize, while offering the historical framework for each factor. Guiding courts and law enforcement to handle privacy concerns with the use of drones will provide a structured and approachable analysis that can apply regardless of the drone-in-question’s capabilities and the amount of technologies used.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信