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 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.

Preserving the Bivens Doctrine in the Fourth Amendment Context

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.

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

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.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén