The Fourth (and First) Amendment:Searches with, and Scrutiny of, Neuroimaging

  • Marc Jonathan Blitz
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Law, Neuroscience, and Human Behavior book series (PASTLNHB)


The questions raised of Fourth Amendment law by neuroimaging at first seem to have simple answers: The Fourth Amendment covers neuroimaging because probing any part of the body’s interior is a “search.” The standard level of protection against such a search is the warrant requirement, imposing on government the responsibility of showing probable cause and specifying the place to be searched before conducting such a search. However, matters are not so simple. There is significant gray area in the Fourth Amendment that the court has used to give government flexibility in meeting vital security interests. This chapter shows that some of the answers to these Fourth Amendment problems may unexpectedly have First Amendment solutions.


First Amendment Fourth Amendment Free speech Neuroimaging Search Searches incident to arrest Special needs searches Third party doctrine Warrantless Warrants 


  1. Adkins, D. (2002). The Supreme Court Announces a Fourth Amendment “General Public Use” Standard for Emerging Technologies but Fails To Define It: Kyllo v. United States. University of Dayton Law Review, 27, 245–267.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, M. (1996). Cyberspace, General Searches, and Digital Contraband. Yale Law Journal, 105, 1093–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bambauer, J. (2015). Other People’s Papers. Texas Law Review, 94, 205–263.Google Scholar
  4. Blitz, M. J. (2004). Video Surveillance and the Constitution of Public Space: Fitting the Fourth Amendment to a World That Tracks Image and Identity. Texas Law Review, 82, 1349–1481.Google Scholar
  5. Bonaci, T., & Chizek, H. J. (2013). Privacy by Design in Brain-Computer Interfaces. UWEET Technical Report (pp. 1–3).Google Scholar
  6. Childers, N. (2013, June 6). The Video Game Helmet That Can Hack Your Brain, Motherboard Blog.
  7. Cohen, J. (1996). A Right to Read Anonymously: A Closer Look at “Copyright Management” in Cyberspace. Connecticut Law Review, 28, 981–1039.Google Scholar
  8. Farah, M. J., Smith, M. E., Gawuga, C., Lindsell, D., & Foster, D. (2010). Brain Imaging and Brain Privacy: A Realistic Concern? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(1), 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Farahany, N. A. (2008, April 17). Big Brother Wants to Get in Your Head. Washington Post.Google Scholar
  10. Farahany, N. A. (2012a). Incriminating Thoughts. Stanford Law Review, 64, 351–408.Google Scholar
  11. Farahany, N. A. (2012b). Searching Secrets. Pennsylvania Law Review, 160, 1239–1308.Google Scholar
  12. Federspiel, W. (2008). 1984 Arrives: Thought(Crime), Technology, and the Constitution. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 16, 865–900.Google Scholar
  13. Florence, J., & Friedman, R. (2010). Profiles in Terror: A Legal Framework for the Behavioral Profiling Paradigm. George Mason Law Review, 17, 425.Google Scholar
  14. Freiwald, S. (2007). First Principles of Communication Privacy. Stanford Technology Law Review, 2010, 3–75.Google Scholar
  15. Gray, D., & Citron, D. (2013). The Right to Quantitative Privacy. Wisconsin Minnesota Law Review, 98, 62–144.Google Scholar
  16. Henderson, S. E. (2007). Beyond the (Current) Fourth Amendment: Protecting Third Party Information, Third Parties, and the Rest of Us Too. Pepperdine Law Review, 34, 975–1025.Google Scholar
  17. Henderson, S. E. (2011). The Timely Demise of the Fourth Amendment Third Party Doctrine. Iowa Law Reviews Bulletin, 96, 39–50.Google Scholar
  18. Holley, B. (2009). It’s All in Your Head: Neurotechnological Lie Detection and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Developments in Metal Health Law, 28(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
  19. Joh, E. (2006). Reclaiming “Abandoned” DNA: The Fourth Amendment and Genetic Privacy. Northwestern University Law Reviews, 100, 858–884.Google Scholar
  20. Kerr, I. R., & McGill, J. (2007). Emanations, Snoop Dogs and Reasonable Expectation of Privacy. Criminal Law Quarterly, 52(3), 392–432.Google Scholar
  21. Kerr, O. S. (2009). The Case for Third Party Doctrine. Michigan Law Review, 107, 561–601.Google Scholar
  22. Kerr, O. S. (2010). Ex Ante Regulation of Computer Search and Seizure. Virginia Law Review, 96, 1241–1293.Google Scholar
  23. Kilbride, M., & Iuliano, J. (2015). Neuro Lie Detection and Mental Privacy. Maryland Law Review, 75, 163–193.Google Scholar
  24. Loewy, A. H. (1983). The Fourth Amendment as a Device for Protecting the Innocent. Michigan Law Review, 81, 1229–1272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martinovic, I., Davies, D., Frank, M., Perito, D., Ros, T., & Song, D. (2012, August). On the Feasibility of Side-Channel Attacks with Brain-Computer Interfaces. In 21st USENIX Security Symposium. USENIX Association.Google Scholar
  26. Moreno, J. A. (2009). The Future of Neuroimaged Lie Detection and the Law. Akron Law Review, 42, 717–736.Google Scholar
  27. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  28. Ohm, P. (2011). Massive Hard Drives, General Warrants, and the Power of Magistrate Judges. Virginia Law Reviews in Briefings, 97, 1–12.Google Scholar
  29. Pardo, M. S. (2006). Neuroscience Evidence, Legal Culture, and Criminal Procedure. American Journal of Criminal Law, 33, 301–337.Google Scholar
  30. Pustilnik, A. C. (2013). Neurotechnologies at the Intersection of Criminal Procedure and Constitution Law. In S. Richardson & J. Parry (Eds.), The Constitution and the Future of Criminal Law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Richards, N. (2015). Intellectual Privacy: Challenges for the 21st Century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rogers, C. (2014). A Slow March Towards Thought Crime: How the Department of Homeland Security’s Fast Program Violates the Fourth Amendment. American University Law Review, 64, 337–384.Google Scholar
  33. Seung, S. (2012). Connectome: How the Brain’s Wiring Makes Us Who We Are. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  34. Slobogin, C. (2007). Privacy at Risk: The New Government Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Slobogin, C. (2014). Panvasive Surveillance, Political Process Theory, and Non-Delegation Doctrine. Georgetown Law Journal, 102, 1721–1775.Google Scholar
  36. Solove, D. J. (2007). First Amendment as Criminal Procedure. New York University Law Reviews, 82, 112–176.Google Scholar
  37. Solove, D. J. (2010). Fourth Amendment Pragmatism. Boston College Law Review, 51, 1511–1538.Google Scholar
  38. Tovino, S. A. (2005). The Confidentiality and Privacy Implications of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Journal of Law and Medical Ethics, 33, 844–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc Jonathan Blitz
    • 1
  1. 1.Oklahoma City University School of LawOklahoma CityUSA

Personalised recommendations