74 Am. U. L. Rev. F. 145 (2024).

Download PDF Here!

Abstract

This Comment argues that courts reasoning whether long-term pole camera surveillance of a home is a Fourth Amendment search should not apply the public observation doctrine because entering and exiting one’s home is not volitional. It compares long-term pole camera cases to Carpenter v. United States, where the court did not apply the third-party doctrine upon determining that cell phone usage was not volitional. The author argues that if the public observation doctrine was applied to long-term pole camera cases, residents would have to achieve secrecy to secure privacy protection around their homes.

* Senior Staffer, American University Law Review, Volume 74; J.D. Candidate, May 2025, American University Washington College of Law; English, B.A., 2020, The Ohio State University.  I am extremely grateful for the expertise and input that my advisor, Andrew Ferguson, and my editor, Eden Hankin, provided throughout the writing process. Additionally, I am thankful to all the staffers and editors at the American University Law Review who contributed to this piece, specifically Lars Emerson and Brian Frank.