Police, Process, and Privacy
Three Essays on the Third Party Doctrine
Download eBook for Free
|PDF file||1.1 MB||
Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.
Policymakers — state and federal, legislative and judicial — have expressed their interest in updating the laws regarding electronic surveillance. This interest is motivated by several recent trends. First, law enforcement surveillance has traditionally been limited as much by practical considerations, including the costs and technical difficulty of obtaining evidence, as legal ones. However, technological innovations have undermined these traditional practical protections, raising questions about the adequacy of the legal protections that remain. Second, law enforcement agencies are no longer the only entities collecting information about individuals. A wide variety of commercial entities now collect information about their customers, which law enforcement can access with only minimal legal protections. However, attempts to update electronic surveillance laws are made more difficult by the fact that very little is currently known about how law enforcement officers use electronic surveillance and commercial information requests. This dissertation presents the results of three studies that investigate how law enforcement uses electronic surveillance.
Table of Contents
Does Rejection of the Third Party Doctrine Change Use of Electronic Surveillance? Evidence from the Wiretap Reports
Reconsidering Law Enforcement Use of Technological Search and Seizure: Dollars and Sense
The Gilded Age of Electronic Surveillance
Bibliography, Does Rejection of the Third Party Doctrine Change Use of Electronic Surveillance?
Description of State Supreme Court Cases Affirming or Rejecting the Third-Party Doctrine
Additional Comparison of Intercept Trends
Results of Sensitivity Analyses
References, Reconsidering Law Enforcement Use of Technological Search and Seizure
Full List of Considerations for Using Electronic Surveillance and Commercial Requests
Research conducted by
This document was submitted as a dissertation in August 2016 in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the doctoral degree in public policy analysis at the Pardee RAND Graduate School. The faculty committee that supervised and approved the dissertation consisted of Edward Balkovich (Chair), James Anderson, and Sasha Romanosky.
This publication is part of the RAND Corporation Dissertation series. Pardee RAND dissertations are produced by graduate fellows of the Pardee RAND Graduate School, the world's leading producer of Ph.D.'s in policy analysis. The dissertations are supervised, reviewed, and approved by a Pardee RAND faculty committee overseeing each dissertation.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.