ImageVerifierCode 换一换
格式:PDF , 页数:4 ,大小:607.10KB ,
资源ID:27358    下载:注册后免费下载
快捷下载
登录下载
邮箱/手机:
温馨提示:
快捷下载时,用户名和密码都是您填写的邮箱或者手机号,方便查询和重复下载(系统自动生成)。 如填写123,账号就是123,密码也是123。
特别说明:
请自助下载,系统不会自动发送文件的哦; 如果您已付费,想二次下载,请登录后访问:我的下载记录
验证码:   换一换

加入VIP,免费下载
 

温馨提示:由于个人手机设置不同,如果发现不能下载,请复制以下地址【https://www.lianhezuozhan.com/docdown/27358.html】到电脑端继续下载(重复下载不扣费)。

已注册用户请登录:
账号:
密码:
验证码:   换一换
  忘记密码?
三方登录: 微信登录  

下载须知

1: 本站所有资源如无特殊说明,都需要本地电脑安装OFFICE2007和PDF阅读器。
2: 试题试卷类文档,如果标题没有明确说明有答案则都视为没有答案,请知晓。
3: 文件的所有权益归上传用户所有。
4. 未经权益所有人同意不得将文件中的内容挪作商业或盈利用途。
5. 本站仅提供交流平台,并不能对任何下载内容负责。
6. 下载文件中如有侵权或不适当内容,请与我们联系,我们立即纠正。
7. 本站不保证下载资源的准确性、安全性和完整性, 同时也不承担用户因使用这些下载资源对自己和他人造成任何形式的伤害或损失。

版权提示 | 免责声明

本文([20180626]LSB10157_更新时间:最高法院受理手机位置数据第四修正案.pdf)为本站会员(任我行)主动上传,联参智库仅提供信息存储空间,仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理,对上载内容本身不做任何修改或编辑。 若此文所含内容侵犯了您的版权或隐私,请立即通知联参智库(发送邮件至xuewenjia2014@163.com或直接QQ联系客服),我们立即给予删除!

[20180626]LSB10157_更新时间:最高法院受理手机位置数据第四修正案.pdf

1、CRS INSIGHT Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Legal SidebarLegal Sidebari i UPDATE: Supreme Court Takes Fourth Amendment Case about Cell Phone Location Data June 26, 2018 Update: On June 22, 2018, the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-4 decision in Carpenter v. United States that government

2、 acquisition of historical cell site location information (CSLI) constitutes a Fourth Amendment search. The Court further held that the government needs a warrant supported by probable causenot merely a court order under the Stored Communications Actto acquire historical CSLI in most circumstances.

3、The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, concluded that “an individual maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements as captured through CSLI.” A central issue in the case concerned

4、the viability of the Courts third-party doctrine, which generally recognizes that no reasonable expectation of privacy exists as to information that a person discloses voluntarily to third parties. The majority in Carpenter reasoned that the third-party doctrine, which developed in cases holding tha