Skip to main content

Constitutional Puzzles and (Neuro) Technological Changes

  • 522 Accesses

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

Abstract

This chapter explains why neuroimaging raises constitutional puzzles, even where constitutional rules at first seem clear. The Fifth Amendment bars compelled self-incrimination and one might assume that would prevent police from circumventing this limit by obtaining evidence of mental states some other way. The Fourth Amendment would almost certain classify neuroimaging as a search, and thus subject it to constitutional limits. However, both of the implications of these provisions are unclear: They seem to leave police with plenty of room to gather physical evidence of various kinds – and there are certain respects in which neuroimaging evidence resembles such physical evidence (as the chapter illustrates with the help of a hypothetical crime investigation). The chapter points to a way ahead and also argues that while the First Amendment isn’t generally considered a kind of privacy protection, its freedom of thought protection may be a key part of solving these puzzles.

Keywords

  • Brain scan
  • Mind reading
  • Brain-mind distinction
  • Evidence
  • Police
  • Law enforcement
  • Video evidence
  • Locke
  • Mill
  • Liberalism
  • Neuroimaging
  • Extended mind
  • Chalmers
  • Clark
  • Fourth Amendment
  • Fifth Amendment
  • First Amendment
  • Searches and seizures
  • Warrants
  • Warrantless searches
  • Self-incrimination
  • Freedom of thought
  • Privacy
  • Autonomy
  • Intellectual privacy
  • Internet privacy

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Adler, M. (1996). Cyberspace, General Searches, and Digital Contraband. Yale Law Journal, 105, 1093–1120.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bard, J. S. (2016). Ah, Yes: I Remember It Well: Why the Inherent Unreliability of Human Memory Makes Brain Imaging Technology a Measure of Truth-Telling in the Courtroom. Oregon Law Review, 94, 295–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blitz, M. J. (2005). The Dangers of Fighting Terrorism with Technocommunitarianism. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 32, 677–719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blitz, M. J. (2010). Freedom of Thought for the Extended Mind. Wisconsin Law Review, 2010, 1049–1117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blitz, M. J. (2016). A Right to Thought Enhancing Technology. In Jotterard, Fabrice & Dubljevic, Veljko (Ed.), Cognitive Enhancement: Ethical and Policy Implications in International Perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boire, R. G. (2000, Summer). On Cognitive Liberty, Pt. II. Journal of Cognitive Liberty, 2(1), 7–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boire, R. G. (2005). Neurocops: The Politics of Prohibition and the Future of Enforcing Social Policy from Inside the Body. Journal of Law and Health, 19, 215–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan-Marquez, K. (2012–13). A Modest Defense of Mind-Reading. Yale Journal of Law and Technology, 15, 214–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T., & Murphy, E. (2010). Through a Scanner Darkly: Functional Neuroimaging as Evidence of a Criminal Defendant’s Past Mental States. Stanford Law Review, 62(1119), 1138–1139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, R. (2015, September 25). Neurotelepathy: The Rise of Mind-Reading Machines, Science Focus. http://www.sciencefocus.com/feature/mind-reading/neurotelepathy-rise-mind-reading-machines.

  • Clark, A., & Chalmers David, J. (2008). The Extended Mind. In A. Clark (Ed.), Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and the Cognitive Experience. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1996). A Right to Read Anonymously: A Closer Look at “Copyright Management” in Cyberspace. Connecticut Law Review, 28, 981–1039.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federspiel, W. (2008). 1984 Arrives: Thought(Crime), Technology, and the Constitution. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 16, 865–900.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, D. (2009). The Right to Silence as Protecting Mental Control. Akron Law Review, 42, 763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holley, P. (2016, June 5). Their Son Was Killed. They Believe His Parrot Is Telling People Who Pulled the Trigger. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/05/their-son-was-killed-they-believe-his-parrot-is-telling-people-who-pulled-the-trigger/?utm_term=.84d253de0f9f

  • Kolber, A. (2008). Freedom of memory today. Neuroethics, 1, 145–148.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kolber, A. J. (2016). Two Views of First Amendment Thought Privacy, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 2010, 1381–1423.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaFave, W. R. (1996). Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment (3rd ed.). St. Paul, MN: Thomson West.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, N. (2007). Neuroethics: Challenges for the 21st Century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Loewy, A. H. (1983). The Fourth Amendment as a Device for Protecting the Innocent. Michigan Law Review, 81, 1229–1272.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E., & Ketchum, K. (1994). The Myth of Repressed Memory: False Memories and Allegations of Sexual Abuse. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moriarty, J. C. (2009). Visions of Deception: Neuroimages and the Search for Truth. Akron Law Review, 42, 739–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? Philosophical Review, LXXXIII(4), 435–450.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • New, J. G. (2008). If You Could Read My Mind. Journal of Legal Medicine, 29, 179–198.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. New York: New American Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pardo, M. S., & Patterson, D. (2013). Minds, Brains and Law: The Conceptual Foundations of Law and Neuroscience. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • PBS NewsHour. (2016, June 28). Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Who Beat Back Legal Challenges to Obamacare, Steps Down. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/solicitor-general-donald-verrilli-who-beat-back-legal-challenges-to-obamacare-steps-down/.

  • Richards, N. (2008). Intellectual Privacy. Texas Law Review, 87, 387–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, N. (2015). Intellectual Privacy: Challenges for the 21st Century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahakian, B. J., & Gottwald, J. (2017). Sex, Lies, and Brain Scans: How fMRI Reveals What Really Goes on in our Minds. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schauer, Frederick. (2010). Can Bad Science Be Good Evidence? Neuroscience, Lie Detection, and Beyond. Cornell Law Review, 95, 1191–1219.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scherr, A. E. (2013). Genetic Privacy & The Fourth Amendment: Unregulated Surreptitious DNA Harvesting. Georgia Law Review, 47, 445–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen, F. X. (2013). Neuroscience, Mental Privacy and the Law. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 36, 653–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solove, D. J. (2007). First Amendment as Criminal Procedure. New York University Law Reviews, 82, 112–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tovino, S. A. (2007). Functional Neuroimaging Information: A Case of Neuroexceptionalism. Florida State University Law Review, 33, 415–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tribe, L. H. (1988). American Constitutional Law (2nd edn.; 1321–1326). St. Paul, MN: Foundation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner A., et al. (2016). fMRI and Lie Detection: A Knowledge Brief of the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience. http://www.lawneuro.org/LieDetect.pdf

  • Winick, B. J. (1989). The Right to Refuse Mental Health Treatment: A First Amendment Perspective. University of Miami Law Review, 44, 1–103.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/), which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Blitz, M.J. (2017). Constitutional Puzzles and (Neuro) Technological Changes. In: Searching Minds by Scanning Brains. Palgrave Studies in Law, Neuroscience, and Human Behavior. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50004-1_2

Download citation