Oren Kerr

Thank you for that opportunity. Appreciate it. Yeah, so it's a book, The Digital Fourth Amendment, and it's basically how the court should respond to the digital age, taking as a starting point that courts tend to respond to new technologies and craft new rules for these new technologies. And we've seen this already with Riley.

Thank you for that opportunity. Appreciate it. Yeah, so it's a book, The Digital Fourth Amendment, and it's basically how the court should respond to the digital age, taking as a starting point that courts tend to respond to new technologies and craft new rules for these new technologies. And we've seen this already with Riley.

versus California and Carpenter versus United States, which you guys know very well. And so it's basically taking that methodology and saying, here's how we might get kind of a digital specific rules in Fourth Amendment law. What's a search? What's a seizure? How should warrants be executed?

versus California and Carpenter versus United States, which you guys know very well. And so it's basically taking that methodology and saying, here's how we might get kind of a digital specific rules in Fourth Amendment law. What's a search? What's a seizure? How should warrants be executed?

Exceptions to the warrant requirement, kind of playing out these methodologies and looking broadly at how the law should

Exceptions to the warrant requirement, kind of playing out these methodologies and looking broadly at how the law should

should appear and as you say that it's currently unavailable i like to think it's because you know it's no doubt going to be a bestseller but whether that's true or not i think there's a very small first printing and it should should be available in about two or three weeks okay they're doing another couple hundred thousand it sounds like okay i pre-ordered months ago and i still haven't got my copy i have never seen a copy myself so

should appear and as you say that it's currently unavailable i like to think it's because you know it's no doubt going to be a bestseller but whether that's true or not i think there's a very small first printing and it should should be available in about two or three weeks okay they're doing another couple hundred thousand it sounds like okay i pre-ordered months ago and i still haven't got my copy i have never seen a copy myself so

Yeah, I think that's right. Exactly what was the question that the court was deciding was a big issue at the oral argument because there was – you had the very narrow issue they ran a cert on and then everybody wanted to jump into other issues especially as it became clear that there was probably a rough consensus as to the actual question presented.

Yeah, I think that's right. Exactly what was the question that the court was deciding was a big issue at the oral argument because there was – you had the very narrow issue they ran a cert on and then everybody wanted to jump into other issues especially as it became clear that there was probably a rough consensus as to the actual question presented.

So how far are they going to rule is probably – is open but it's not open as to – after the argument at least as to which side ultimately they're going to come down on.

So how far are they going to rule is probably – is open but it's not open as to – after the argument at least as to which side ultimately they're going to come down on.

You should reject the moment of the threat doctrine. As Justice Gorsuch pointed out at the arguments, no one seemed to want to endorse that approach. And then the question is, what do you say beyond that? Do you say just we send it back totally the circumstances or do you start giving some guidance as to timing and how to think about this and how to think about officer sort of created threats?

You should reject the moment of the threat doctrine. As Justice Gorsuch pointed out at the arguments, no one seemed to want to endorse that approach. And then the question is, what do you say beyond that? Do you say just we send it back totally the circumstances or do you start giving some guidance as to timing and how to think about this and how to think about officer sort of created threats?

And it wasn't obvious that there was really any shared view, at least among more than two or three justices for what to say beyond that.

And it wasn't obvious that there was really any shared view, at least among more than two or three justices for what to say beyond that.

The justices seem to want to say everything is objective, even when they introduce subjectivity into the tests. It's almost like they have some commitment. No, no, we're definitely following the old rules, even when they seem to sneak past that. I was also a little bit unsure of the negligence and subjective objective part of this.

The justices seem to want to say everything is objective, even when they introduce subjectivity into the tests. It's almost like they have some commitment. No, no, we're definitely following the old rules, even when they seem to sneak past that. I was also a little bit unsure of the negligence and subjective objective part of this.

I think the challenge here is that usually in Fourth Amendment law, everything is kind of rule-ified. Like there's a big rules versus standards backdrop to this whole case. So in Fourth Amendment law, usually it's clear rules. Like, you know, the stop is a seizure. And to do the stop, you need to have this cause. And to search, that's this cause. And sort of everything is very sequential.

I think the challenge here is that usually in Fourth Amendment law, everything is kind of rule-ified. Like there's a big rules versus standards backdrop to this whole case. So in Fourth Amendment law, usually it's clear rules. Like, you know, the stop is a seizure. And to do the stop, you need to have this cause. And to search, that's this cause. And sort of everything is very sequential.