Emory Law Journal

Volume 66Issue 2
Comments

Lichtenberger, Sparks, and Wicks: The Future of the Private Search Doctrine

Alexandra Gioseffi | 66 Emory L.J. 395 (2017)

Electronic devices are becoming increasingly prevalent in our daily lives, simultaneously replacing photo albums, address books, printed documents, and other, previously indispensable items. Electronic devices have even invaded a controversial area of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence: the private search doctrine. However, this doctrine’s application to electronic devices suffered from a dearth of existing law. Courts sought to fill this gap using two primary approaches: the container approach and the particularity approach. The container approach ignores the modern realities of electronic devices and the related privacy concerns. In contrast, the particularity approach accommodates these contemporary realities and increased privacy interests. This Comment concludes that courts should adopt the particularity approach to protect individuals from invasive government searches, in the true spirit of the Fourth Amendment.

Read More »

Cavity Filling or Root Canal? How Courts Should Apply North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC

Richard F. Walker III | 66 Emory L.J. 443 (2017)

This Comment argues that federal courts and the FTC should narrowly construe a recent Supreme Court decision restricting the scope of the antitrust state-action doctrine. In North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners, the Supreme Court held that state boards controlled by active market participants must receive active state supervision to invoke state-action antitrust immunity. Notably, the majority opinion did not provide a test for determining whether active market participants control a state agency. Nor did it offer guidance on the adequate level of supervision states must provide to satisfy the active supervision requirement. States and courts can look to an FTC Staff Guidance Statement and the Parker together to suggest that N.C. Dental is amenable to an interpretation that does not eviscerate the antitrust state-action doctrine. What’s more, strong policy reasons support an interpretation of N.C. Dental that does not unduly trammel states’ rights.

Read More »