As technology continues to advance rapidly, courts have grappled with applying traditional legal principles to novel situations involving digital evidence, surveillance, and cybercrime.
- Carpenter v. United States (2018): Although decided just before our four-year window, this landmark case continues to have significant implications. The Court held that the government’s acquisition of cell-site location information constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, generally requiring a warrant. This decision has prompted ongoing litigation and legislation regarding digital privacy and surveillance[20].
- United States v. Microsoft Corp. (2018): While this case was ultimately mooted by the passage of the CLOUD Act, it raised important questions about the reach of U.S. law enforcement in obtaining data stored overseas. The subsequent CLOUD Act has reshaped how prosecutors obtain electronic evidence stored abroad[21].
- Packingham v. North Carolina (2017): Another case with ongoing impact, this decision struck down a North Carolina law barring registered sex offenders from accessing social media websites. The Court emphasized the importance of social media as a forum for speech, setting the stage for ongoing debates about online speech and criminal law[22].
- Kansas v. Glover (2020): While mentioned earlier in the Fourth Amendment section, this case also has implications for emerging technology. The Court’s ruling that an officer can reasonably suspect a car’s registered owner is driving the car when the owner’s license is revoked has prompted discussions about the use of automated license plate readers and database cross-referencing in law enforcement[23].
- Van Buren v. United States (2021): Also mentioned in the white-collar crime section, this case significantly impacts cybercrime prosecutions under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The Court’s narrowing of the CFAA’s scope has implications for a wide range of computer-related activities and cybersecurity practices[24].
- Riley v. California (2014): Although decided earlier, this case’s impact on digital privacy continues to be felt. The Court held that police generally need a warrant to search the contents of a cell phone seized during an arrest, recognizing the vast amount of personal information contained in modern smartphones[25].
These cases demonstrate the judiciary’s ongoing efforts to adapt traditional legal doctrines to rapidly evolving technologies. They reflect a general trend towards recognizing heightened privacy interests in digital information, while also grappling with the practical needs of law enforcement in the digital age. As technology continues to advance, we can expect further refinements and potentially significant shifts in how criminal law is applied in cases involving digital evidence, cybercrime, and emerging technologies.