N.Y.U. Proceedings

Exploring New Approaches to Unsettled Legal Questions

Tag: UCLA Cybersecurity Competition

The Constitutionality of Policing Technology: Evaluating Network Investigative Techniques Under Fourth Amendment Search Doctrine

By

On November 15, 2022

In Contributions

by Madi­son Gon­za­lez*

Courts review the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of dig­i­tal sur­veil­lance tech­nolo­gies in crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tions under Fourth Amend­ment search doc­trine. In order to con­sti­tute a search, a law enforce­ment prac­tice must either vio­late an individual’s rea­son­able expec­ta­tion of pri­va­cy or con­sti­tute a phys­i­cal tres­pass on pri­vate prop­er­ty. In this Con­tri­bu­tion, Madi­son Gon­za­lez (’23) argues that the use of a Net­work Inves­tiga­tive Tech­nique (“NIT”) to col­lect an Inter­net Pro­to­col (“IP”) address direct­ly from an individual’s com­put­er is a Fourth Amend­ment search under either test.

Read More

Preserving the Bivens Doctrine in the Fourth Amendment Context

By

On October 4, 2022

In Contributions

by Tina LaRitz*

The Bivens doc­trine allows plain­tiffs who suf­fer con­sti­tu­tion­al vio­la­tions at the hands of fed­er­al offi­cers to claim mon­e­tary dam­ages from fed­er­al courts, absent the statu­to­ry recog­ni­tion of such a right. Recent jurispru­dence has increas­ing­ly sought to lim­it this right in a show of judi­cial con­ser­vatism at the expense of deserv­ing plain­tiffs. This Con­tri­bu­tion argues that the Bivens doc­trine must be pre­served broad­ly with­in the Fourth Amend­ment unrea­son­able search context.

Read More

The Role of the Rule of Lenity and the Canon of Constitutional Avoidance in Interpreting the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

By

On May 2, 2022

In Contributions

by Rachel Sang*

The Com­put­er Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), enact­ed in 1986, is a fed­er­al law that pro­scribes cer­tain behav­ior involv­ing unau­tho­rized access to com­put­ers. Over time, a cir­cuit split devel­oped regard­ing the mean­ing of the CFAA’s “Access Pro­vi­sion.” The Supreme Court resolved this cir­cuit split in its recent deci­sion Van Buren v. Unit­ed States. In this Con­tri­bu­tion, Rachel Sang (’22) argues that although both the major­i­ty opin­ion and the dis­sent in Van Buren pro­vide con­vinc­ing tex­tu­al inter­pre­ta­tions of the statute, pol­i­cy con­sid­er­a­tions, the rule of leni­ty, and con­sti­tu­tion­al con­cerns weigh in favor of the majority’s con­struc­tion of the CFAA.

Read More

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén