Schema-Root.org logo

 

  cross-referenced news and research resources about

 Smith v. Maryland

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. The pen register was installed on telephone company property at the telephone company's central offices. In the Majority opinion, Justice Blackmun rejected the idea that the installation and use of a pen registry constitutes a violation of the "legitimate expectation of privacy" since the numbers would be available to and recorded by the phone company anyway.

Schema-Root.org logo
images:  google   yahoo YouTube
spacer

updated Sat. April 6, 2024

-
Voter enticement seems mild by comparison. Even email is risky. According to Gmail, users should have no expectation of privacy in email that they send. "A person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties" (Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 ...

For example, in Smith v. Maryland in 1978, the court held that police do not need a warrant to obtain from the phone company a record of the numbers that we dial or receive calls from because we should not be able to expect that the third party, the phone company, will keep the information secret.
That was a huge deal in 1986 because Congress understandably assumed after Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), that the Fourth Amendment probably didn't impose the same requirement. Here the government has a warrant, which is all that the SCA requires if it applies. As a result, the parties are ...
He said that smartphone records held by any third party (in this case, a cell-phone company, but it could also be an app maker) were no different than records of the numbers that a landline had called. In a 1979 decision, Smith v. Maryland, the Court found it permissible for a police officer to find out from the ...
Justice Stephen Breyer for one pushed for a bright line on how to distinguish Carpenter's case from other digital-privacy battles like Smith v. Maryland or United States v. Miller. In Smith, the court ruled the government could use a pen register, a device that records phone numbers but not call content, during ...
The Sixth Circuit below relied on this Court's opinion in Smith v. Maryland to hold Americans lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in CSLI because it is a business record held by third-party service providers. But Smith cannot govern here. The now-routine use of CSLI to reconstruct individuals' ...
Authorities say a warrant is not necessary in Carpenter's case, as the Supreme Court's 1979 ruling in Smith v. Maryland holds that people have no expectation ... The so-called third party doctrine of Smith v. Maryland, which dealt with a short span of landline records, and related cases also applies to some ...
The U.S. Supreme Court's 1979 decision of Smith v. Maryland turned 35 years old last week. Since it was decided, Smith has stood for the idea that people have no expectation of privacy in information they expose to others. Labeled the third party “doctrine” (even by EFF itself), Smith has come up over and ...


 

news and opinion


 


 


 


 


schema-root.org

    usa
     government
      branches
       judicial branch
        supreme court
         decisions
          fourth amendment
            smith v. maryland

U.S. Supreme Court Fourth Amendment decisions:
            olmstead v. united states
            smith v. maryland
            united states v. jones