{"title":"又一个卡茨时刻?:隐私、财产和DNA数据库","authors":"Claire Mena","doi":"10.36646/mjlr.55.3.another","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The understanding of these words seems to shift as new technologies emerge. As law enforcement’s arsenal of surveillance techniques has grown to include GPS tracking, cell phones, and cell site location information (CSLI), the Supreme Court has applied Fourth Amendment protections to these modern tools. Law enforcement continues to use one pervasive surveillance technique without limitations: the routine collection of DNA. In 2013, the Supreme Court in Maryland v. King held that law enforcement may routinely collect DNA upon arrest for a serious crime. This Note discusses the routine collection of DNA and how it ought to be situated within evolving Fourth Amendment doctrine. Given the nature of DNA and growing DNA databases, law enforcement use of DNA—like its use of other surveillance technologies—should be limited by the Fourth Amendment. DNA collection may not fit neatly within Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, but neither did cell phones, GPS tracking devices, or CSLI when the Court chose to include them under such protections.","PeriodicalId":83420,"journal":{"name":"University of Michigan journal of law reform. University of Michigan. Law School","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Another Katz Moment?: Privacy, Property, and a DNA Database\",\"authors\":\"Claire Mena\",\"doi\":\"10.36646/mjlr.55.3.another\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The understanding of these words seems to shift as new technologies emerge. As law enforcement’s arsenal of surveillance techniques has grown to include GPS tracking, cell phones, and cell site location information (CSLI), the Supreme Court has applied Fourth Amendment protections to these modern tools. Law enforcement continues to use one pervasive surveillance technique without limitations: the routine collection of DNA. In 2013, the Supreme Court in Maryland v. King held that law enforcement may routinely collect DNA upon arrest for a serious crime. This Note discusses the routine collection of DNA and how it ought to be situated within evolving Fourth Amendment doctrine. Given the nature of DNA and growing DNA databases, law enforcement use of DNA—like its use of other surveillance technologies—should be limited by the Fourth Amendment. DNA collection may not fit neatly within Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, but neither did cell phones, GPS tracking devices, or CSLI when the Court chose to include them under such protections.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Michigan journal of law reform. University of Michigan. Law School\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Michigan journal of law reform. University of Michigan. Law School\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.55.3.another\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Michigan journal of law reform. University of Michigan. Law School","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.55.3.another","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
第四修正案保护“人民的人身、房屋、文件和财产不受无理搜查和扣押的权利”。随着新技术的出现,对这些词的理解似乎也在发生变化。由于执法部门的监视技术已经发展到包括GPS跟踪,手机和手机站点位置信息(CSLI),最高法院已经将第四修正案的保护应用于这些现代工具。执法部门继续无限制地使用一种无处不在的监视技术:常规的DNA收集。2013年,最高法院在马里兰州诉金案(Maryland v. King)中裁定,执法部门可以在因严重犯罪而被捕时定期收集DNA。本文讨论了DNA的常规收集,以及如何将其置于不断发展的第四修正案原则之中。鉴于DNA的性质和不断增长的DNA数据库,执法部门对DNA的使用——就像对其他监控技术的使用一样——应该受到第四修正案的限制。DNA收集可能不完全符合第四修正案的法理,但当法院选择将手机、GPS跟踪设备或CSLI纳入此类保护时,它们也不符合。
Another Katz Moment?: Privacy, Property, and a DNA Database
The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The understanding of these words seems to shift as new technologies emerge. As law enforcement’s arsenal of surveillance techniques has grown to include GPS tracking, cell phones, and cell site location information (CSLI), the Supreme Court has applied Fourth Amendment protections to these modern tools. Law enforcement continues to use one pervasive surveillance technique without limitations: the routine collection of DNA. In 2013, the Supreme Court in Maryland v. King held that law enforcement may routinely collect DNA upon arrest for a serious crime. This Note discusses the routine collection of DNA and how it ought to be situated within evolving Fourth Amendment doctrine. Given the nature of DNA and growing DNA databases, law enforcement use of DNA—like its use of other surveillance technologies—should be limited by the Fourth Amendment. DNA collection may not fit neatly within Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, but neither did cell phones, GPS tracking devices, or CSLI when the Court chose to include them under such protections.