Page 211 - Privacy in a Cyber Age Policy and Practice

NOTES 199

13. Cited in Thomas K. Clancy, “What Does the Fourth Amendment Protect:
Property, Privacy, or Security?” Wake Forest Law Review 33, 2 (July 1998):
319.
14. Johnson v. United States (333 U.S. 10, 1948).
15. Cited in Charles Hellman, “Secure in Their Houses? Fourth Amendment
Rights at Public Housing Projects,” New York Law School Law Review 40, 1–2
(1995): 200.
16. Silverman v. United States (365 U.S. 505, 1961).
17. Cited in Kristin M. Barone, “Through the Looking Glass of the Fourth Amend-
ment: The Unintended Consequences of Search Reform Leads to a Technological
Erosion of Security in the Home,” Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law 13,
1 (September2011): 159.
18. Payton v. New York (445 U.S. 573, 1980).
19. Cited in Hellman, “Secure in Their Houses?, 198, emphasis added.
20. Cited in William E. Mercantel, “Is It Hot in Here? The Eighth Circuit’s
Reduction of Fourth Amendment Protections in the Home,” Missouri Law
Review 73, 3 (2008): 888.
21. Mercantel, “Is It Hot in Here?,” 888.
22. Budd, “A Fourth Amendment for the Poor Alone,” 362.
23. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
24. Matthew L. Zabel, “High-Tech Assault on the Castle: Warrantless Thermal
Surveillance of Private Residences and the Fourth Amendment,” Northwestern
University Law Review 90 ,1 (1995): 273.
25. The first draft of the Fourth Amendment was written by James Madison, but
it was based heavily on an earlier Massachusetts model created by Adams.
Thomas K. Clancy, “The Framers’ Intent: John Adams, His Era, and the Fourth
Amendment,” Indiana Law Journal 86, 3 (2011): 979–80, 982.
26. It is agreed that Adams’s report of the events may not be accurate. However, it
matters not what actually happened, but only how it influenced Adams’s intent
in influencing the Fourth Amendment. Clancy, “The Framers’ Intent,” 995.
Cuddihy and Hardy, “A Man’s House Was Not His Castle,” 371.
27. “In order to ascertain the nature of the proceedings intended by the Fourth
Amendment to the Constitution under the terms ‘unreasonable searches and
seizures,’ it is only necessary to recall the contemporary or then recent history
of the controversies on the subject, both in this country and in England. The
practice had obtained in the colonies of issuing writs of assistance to the rev-
enue officers, empowering them, in their discretion, to search suspected places
for smuggled goods.” Boyd v. United States (116 U.S. 616, 1886); “[The Fourth
Amendment] arose from the harsh experience of householders having their
doors hammered upon by magistrates and writ-bearing agents of the crown.
Indeed, the Fourth Amendment is explainable only by the history and memory
of such abuse.” Cuddihy and Hardy, ,” 372.
For a full history of the English practices that led to the colonial rejection
of writs of assistance, see William Cuddihy, “Warrantless House-to-House
Searches and Fourth Amendment Originalism: A Reply to Professor Davies,”
Texas Tech Law Review 44, 4 (2012): 998.