Search for a command to run...
Digital transformations have driven many to contemplate the broadest questions of individual freedom and autonomy.Still, most change is evolutionary, not revolutionary, and requires working through institutions of policy and law.In the United States, "privacy," a contested antidote to surveillance, is woven into a web of statutes and judicial doctrines, the latter hanging on bare threads of constitutional text.Over a century of technological change, judges and legal scholars have labored to give life to the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures."In The Digital Fourth Amendment (2025), a work both thorough and focused, Orin Kerr gauges how this century of work meets the new problems of privacy in a world of data, devices, and networks.Kerr is an optimist.To the cries of "privacy is dead" and "we are doomed" (201), he aims to show that law can once again adapt to technological change.This synthesizes more than two decades of work in which Kerr, now of the Stanford University law faculty, confronts the legal puzzles that accompany digital life.With its conversational tone and efforts to define terms that would be well-known to lawyers, this book aims to reach a wider audience.Across three parts, The Digital Fourth Amendment reads as a dialogue with American courts, diagnosing their errors, addressing remaining gaps, and offering solutions to preserve legal stability.The major thrust of Part One, "Foundations," is to offer "equilibrium-adjustment" both as a theory of law and an account of how the American Supreme Court operates.The basic argument, refined over time (see, Kerr 2011) is simple: technology is a social force that exposes latent tensions and contingencies in the law.When such tensions render an old rule unclear or unworkable, "courts should adjust the doctrine to try to restore the old rule's role in the world of new facts" (42).Technology acutely challenges the Fourth Amendment, where core terms-e.g., "persons, houses, papers, and effects"-originated in ideas of physical space.Part Two's three chapters do not concern surveillance, but rather "local devices" and the problems raised by police seizure of data, computers, and phones.Since law advances by analogy, the movement from "briefcase" to "computer"-both containers-typifies the puzzle: May police probe the contents of both?As Kerr notes, a technology can be similar yet vitally different.A small digital drive, unlike a briefcase,