Matthew Tokson

I'll be speaking about the latest Fourth Amendment issues, including lots about geofences and Chatrie, online for Albany Law. You can register here, it's free (or $30 for CLE credit): alumni.albanylaw.edu/s/977/21/1co...

How well are privacy laws (including the GDPR) being enforced? My new paper reaches some very strong conclusions. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Here's a Bloomberg Law news piece on the Chatrie panel decision: www.bloomberglaw.com/bloomberglaw...

And my next piece, forthcoming in the Florida Law Review symposium issue, is about geofences and other types of retroactive surveillance. Stay tuned.

Some stuff I've already written about Chatrie:

How the 4th Cir got the facts badly wrong in Chatrie: dorfonlaw.org/2024/07/the-...

A deep dive on geofence surveillance and Chatrie's lack of consent: lawfaremedia.org/article/how-...

En banc opinion citing my work: ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/224...

I'm shocked. The Supreme Court grants its first major Fourth Amendment case in 6 years, and it's about a technique (geofencing) that may already be obsolete thanks to Google no longer collecting the relevant data. I'll have way more on this case upcoming.

Thanks for highlighting this! Gorsuch suggests basing 4th Amendment law on Founding-Era common law. Taking this literally, which Gorsuch hopefully doesn't, would destroy 4th Amendment rights in most modern contexts.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Justice Gorsuch has an interesting concurrence where he takes a potshot at Katz and suggests basing 4th Amendment law on Founding-Era common law. Taking this literally, which Gorsuch hopefully doesn't, would destroy 4th Amendment rights in most modern contexts. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Not a huge deal case, since the prior case on this, Brigham City v. Stuart, strongly suggested that a reasonable basis was all that a police officer needed.

The Supreme Court has decided Case v. Montana, holding unanimously that a police officer can enter a home on less than probable cause to render aid when there's a reasonable basis to believe it's necessary.
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

JUSTICE KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court. In Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 400 (2006), this Court held that police officers may enter a home without a warrant if they have an “objectively reasonable basis for believing” that someone inside needs emergency assistance. The question presented is whether that standard means that officers must have “probable cause” for the intrusion, as they typically would when investigating a crime. We hold it does not. The probable-cause requirement is rooted in, and derives its meaning from, the criminal context, and we decline to transplant it to this different one. Brigham City’s reasonableness standard means just what it says, with no further gloss. And here it was satisfied because the police had “an objectively reasonable basis for believing” that a homeowner intended to take his own life and, indeed, may already have shot himself.

The Supreme Court's second opinion (also not tariffs) is Case v. Montana, which unanimously holds that police officers may enter a home without a warrant if they have an “objectively reasonable basis for believing” that someone inside needs emergency assistance. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

Thanks for this great reporting; I wrote about the illegality of government agencies purchasing cellphone data like this (and the meaninglessness of app permissions). papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

In Ukraine, a New Arsenal of Killer A.I. Drones Is Being Born

"'I think we created the monster,' said Nazar Bigun, a young physicist writing terminal-attack software. 'And I’m not sure where it’s going to go.'"
www.nytimes.com/2025/12/31/m...

Preorder today. “Your Data Will Be Used Against You: Policing in the Age of Self-Surveillance.” #books

Border Patrol is monitoring US drivers and detaining those with 'suspicious' travel patterns The U.S. Border Patrol is monitoring millions of American drivers nationwide in a secretive program to identify and detain people whose travel patterns it deems suspicious.

"Suddenly, drivers find themselves pulled over — often for reasons cited such as speeding, failure to signal... They are then aggressively questioned and searched, with no inkling that the roads they drove put them on law enforcement’s radar."
@byrontau.bsky.social @thegarance.bsky.social

Border Patrol is monitoring US drivers and detaining those with 'suspicious' travel patterns The U.S. Border Patrol is monitoring millions of American drivers nationwide in a secretive program to identify and detain people whose travel patterns it deems suspicious.

Excellent article - "The U.S. Border Patrol is monitoring millions of American drivers nationwide in a secretive program to identify and detain people whose travel patterns it deems suspicious." CBP then tells local police to pretextually stop these drivers.
apnews.com/article/immi...

Opinion | If You Tell ChatGPT Your Secrets, Will They Be Kept Safe?

Requiring a warrant for AI chats but allowing all of them in with a warrant strikes the right balance. Chatbots are not therapists, and should not be treated as such - especially since the vast majority of chatbot uses have nothing to do with therapy. 4/4

h/t @orinkerr.bsky.social

Article text

The claim that using chatbots like therapists has a positive social effect is dubious. Chatbots may give good advice or may worsen a users' disorder by encouraging their worst impulses. AI apps tell users not to use them for therapy, and the law, too, should discourage this. 3/

It's very likely that highly revealing content data shared with third parties like Google Searches or the contents of AI chats would be protected under Carpenter, were the question to reach SCOTUS. 2/

New York Times Headline says Doctors, Lawyers and Priests Keep Secrets. Why Not Your Chatbot?

This lazy take on "AI interaction privilege" in today's
@nytimes.com is doubly wrong. First, it's wrong that Google searches and private AI chats are unprotected under the 4th Amendment. Second, it's wrong that we should protect AI queries based on a therapist-style privilege. 1/

New lawsuit challenging NY's semi-pervasive AI camera system, similar to systems now used in many American cities. This is the next frontier in modern Fourth Amendment law.
More here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

CBP says it can arrest US citizens on reasonable suspicion of illegal entry into the US rather than probable cause. This is unlawful; probable cause is constitutionally required for arrest.

x.com/pjaicomo/sta...

Radio description of Lovefool as Oldies

My car made me feel old today

ICE has resumed purchasing location data on hundreds of millions of Americans: www.404media.co/ice-to-buy-t...
This violates the Fourth Amendment, as I explain in a recent article: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Having meaningful Fourth Amendment remedies in place is important because without them you eventually get this - federal agents dragging US citizens from their homes without cause.

YouTube video by TheBlackCrowesVEVO The Black Crowes - Thorn In My Pride

Incredible album
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB7X...

Finally, there will be lots of podcasts.

The Emerging Problem of "AI Psychosis" AI may be fueling psychotic delusions in a phenomenon known as "AI psychosis" or "ChatGPT psychosis." New research explains the risks.

And here's a story on the emerging problem of "AI psychosis" by Psychology Today

www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/urba...

Even today's relatively primitive AIs are directly hurting people and ruining lives. They're largely unregulated and AI companies have ignored safety issues.

+1, I was also going to recommend the first Black Sabbath album

YouTube video by ElasticaVEVO Elastica - Car Song

Relistening to Elastica youtu.be/djjw3BKUV28?...