Search

As with most new things, the big data revolution in criminal justice has historic antecedents--indeed, a 1965 Presidential Commission called for some of the same data analysis that police departments and courts are today developing and implementing. But there is no doubt we are on the precipice of a criminal justice data revolution, and it is a good time to take stock and to begin developing guidelines so that, as much as possible, criminal justice systems might reap the benefits and avoid the pitfalls of this newly data-centric world. In that spirit, I propose ten high-level rules to guide criminal justice big data implementations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When it comes to criminal investigation, time travel is increasingly possible. Despite longstanding roots in traditional investigation, science is today providing something fundamentally different in the form of remarkably complete digital records. And those big data records not only store our past, but thanks to data mining they are in many circumstances eerily good at predicting our future. So, now that we stand on the threshold of investigatory time travel, how should the Fourth Amendment and legislation respond? How should we approach bulk government capture, such as by a solar-powered drone employing wide-area persistent stare technology? Is it meaningfully different from civilian equivalents that find their way into government hands, whether it be tomorrow's drone flight, or today's record of all of our internet activity compiled by our internet service provider, or a current record of all of our movements compiled by our mobile phone company? What of targeted time machines such as government over-seizure of digital data in every computer search? This Article considers the benefits and costs of these miraculous timemachine technologies, including as evidenced by several recent court opinions. Considering the very serious privacy implications--from the individual to the relational and societal--we have good reason to be wary of their coming ubiquity. Yet perhaps in very limited spheres we should welcome them, going so far as to entirely abandon front-end acquisition restrictions and rely solely upon ex post access, use, and disclosure limitations to protect the security in our persons, houses, papers, and effects. I suggest that one such sphere might be law enforcement body cameras, an instance in which full capture has great benefits, and via which we can experiment upon the utility of solely ex post restraints. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article launches a constitutionally grounded, but lighthearted campaign of citizen education and empowerment: Fourth Amendment lawn signs in the U.S. It says that ordinary citizens, with every stake in the ground, can proclaim their expectations and tell everyone that the Fourth Amendment is meant to apply to common people in everyday circumstances.

In late 2014, two grand, juries returned controversial no bill decisions in police killings, one in Ferguson, Missouri, and one in New York City. These outcomes have renewed calls for grand jury reform, and whatever one thinks of these particular processes and outcomes, such reform is long overdue. One logical source of reform to better respect privacy in records, which would have incidental benefits beyond this privacy focus, would be the newly enacted American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice on Law Enforcement Access to Third Party Records (LEATPR). But LEATPR exempts from its requirements access to records via a grand jury subpoena, and, perhaps more surprisingly, potentially exempts access via a "functionally equivalent prosecutorial subpoena." The impetus for this exemption was a concern that applying LEATPR's requirements to the grand jury, or even to its functional equivalent, is unnecessary and might radically undermine longstanding systems of criminal investigation in perhaps unforeseeable ways. This Article addresses whether this exception can be justified by reviewing each of the four main regulatory mechanisms of LEATPR and examining whether grand jury procedures provide an adequate substitute. In finding that they do not, this Article indicates how to improve the grand jury process. These improvements would of course not resolve the very difficult and multifaceted social ills reflected in the controversy over recent grand jury decisions, but they could begin to restore the legitimacy of this once-revered but now-maligned institution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the legal significance of a set of Criminal Justice Standards related to Law Enforcement Access to Third Party Records (LEATPR Standards) drafted by the task force of the American Bar Association's (ABAs) Criminal Justice Standards Committee in 2006. It discusses the role of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the U.S. Department of Justice in the drafting of the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice.

The article discusses investigation of Delaware physician Earl B. Bradley that resulted in a conviction and sentence of fourteen consecutive life terms for the sexual abuse of children. It also discusses decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski regarding restricting searches of computers in order to minimize privacy intrusion while permitting effective law enforcement. It describes Kozinki's computer search decision in context of the law governing the search and seizure of computers and reflects on the dangers of inevitable discovery.

In this article, the author discusses the law governing the privacy in social media. He discusses the history of social media along with the theory of information privacy and the needs for improvements. He discusses that the American Bar Association (ABA) Criminal Justice Standards on Law Enforcement Access to Third Party Records can be used by legislatures and other decision makers to regulate access to social media information.