![handle is hein.journals/jolt21 and id is 1 raw text is:
Richmond Journal of Law & Technology
RILEY V. CALIFORNIA: THE NEW KATZ OR CHIMEL?
Adam Lamparello & Charles MacLean*
To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end
justifies the means to declare that the Government may commit crimes in
order to secure the conviction of a private criminal would bring terrible
retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely
set its face.1
Cite as: Adam Lamparello & Charles MacLean, Riley v. California: The
New Katz or Chimel?, 21 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 1 (2014),
http://jolt.richmond.edu/v21i1/article1.pdf.
I. INTRODUCTION
[1] In Olmstead v. United States,2 Justice Louis Brandeis dissented
from a 5-4 ruling that allowed law enforcement officers to obtain private
wiretapped telephone conversations without a warrant and use them as
evidence.3 Justice Brandeis' words foreshadowed the threats to civil
liberties that technology would pose:
The progress of science in furnishing the Government with
means of espionage is not likely to stop with wire-tapping.
Ways may some day be developed by which the
Government, without removing papers from secret drawers,
can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be
enabled to expose to a jury the most intimate occurrences
* Assistant Professors of Law, Indiana Tech Law School.
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting),
overruled by Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 353 (1967).
2 Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438.
3 See id. at 466.
Volume XXI, Issue I](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/jolt21&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most