Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T04:28:48.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Tortoise and the Hare? Due Process and Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence in the Digital Age

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2018

Róisín Costello
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Under Moore's Law the number of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles relative to cost and size every two years. In practical terms this means personal computers become twice as powerful and half as large every 24 months. However, this rapid rate of proliferation and improvement has not been mirrored in law.

Type
Current Interests
Information
Legal Information Management , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 169 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2018. Published by British and Irish Association of Law Librarians 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Footnotes

1 Christopher S Yoo & Thomas Fetzer “New Technologies and Constitutional Law” University of Pennsylvania Law School, Public Law Research Paper no. 13–30.

2 Tribe, Lawrence H “The Invisible Constitution” (Oxford University Press, 2008) p.9Google Scholar.

3 Judge Henry Friendly has famously enumerated a list of the requirements of Due Process that remains highly influential, see Henry Friendly, ‘Some Kind of Hearing’ 123 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1267 (1975).

4 Palko v. Connecticut, 302 US 319, 325 (1937).

5 Olmstead v United States 277 US 438.

6 Katz v United States 389 US 347.

7 Smith v Maryland 442 US 735.

8 Ibid., p.751.

9 Kyllo v United States 533 US 27.

10 Slobogin, Christopher, ‘Is the Fourth Amendment Relevant in a Technological Age?’ in Rosen, Jeffrey and Wittes, Benjamin eds “Constitution 3.0: Freedom and Technological Change” (The Brookings Institution, 2011) p.11Google Scholar.

11 Carpenter v United States 16–402 (2017).

12 Transcript of Oral argument available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-402_3f14.pdf (accessed 30/11/17).

13 Reilly v California 573 US _ (2014).

14 United States v Jones 565 US 400.

15 n. 11.

16 Tom Simonite “Moore's Law is Dead. Now What?” MIT Technology Review at https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601441/moores-law-is-dead-now-what/ (accessed 30/11/17).