Orin Kerr
banner
orinkerr.bsky.social
Orin Kerr
@orinkerr.bsky.social

Professor, Stanford Law School.
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution.

Author, The Digital 4th Amendment:
https://www.amazon.com/Digital-Fourth-Amendment-Privacy-Policing/dp/0190627077/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0

Orin Samuel Kerr is an American legal scholar known for his studies of American criminal procedure and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as computer crime law and internet surveillance. He has been a professor of law at Stanford Law School since 2025. Kerr is one of the contributors to the law-oriented blog titled The Volokh Conspiracy. .. more

Political science 35%
Law 28%

Agreed, it's something to train for!

Columbia law professor Herbert Wechsler, here interviewed about his career in criminal law and about the drafting of the Model Penal Code. (The interview was conducted in 1989, when Wechsler was 79; he passed away in 2000.)
youtube.com/watch?v=sgMS...
American Law Institute Oral History: Herbert Wechsler: Part 1
YouTube video by University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School
youtube.com

I know where I will be in June 2028. And I'm glad I have two and half years to prepare.
sfopera.com/operas/ring-...

Right, the article is from 1941.

A First Amendment retaliation suit claiming the government searched you to retaliate for your speech requires pleading the absence of probable cause for the search, CA4 holds, agreeing with the CA5.
govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...

Not sure I follow.

The conclusion.

Courts have gutted the exclusionary rule, destroying its value, by creating so many exceptions to it, law review article "Circumventing the Fourth Amendment" argues . . . in 1941.

You lay out the evidence, but you don't reconstruct to the jury how you found it or what led to the complaint.

Why would you present the use of AI in court?

Kind of inherent in speculation, I would think! But if you need the pieces explained, the government's case is based largely on matching up otherwise unrelated sources that would involve massive amounts of data, and they say they combed over all that data again.

Seeing lots of questions about how investigators could somehow find the "needle in a haystack" now while they couldn't find it several years ago.

One possibility: AI.

AI is much more advanced today than a few years ago, and it's very good at going through haystacks of data to find needles.

Maybe the problem is that I live in California. Hard to remember the last time that visibility was poor and conditions were hazardous. :)

Judge Wilkinson today on the 4th Amendment and digital technology. www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...

Video of the shooting wasn't super clear, but it was clear enough to resolve the legal issue here—whether there was probable cause to believe that the individual shot posed a threat of serious physical harm. Here, there was. (per Scudder, J.)
media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Opin...

I suppose there's a philosophical question of what information about the world we should consider (a)reliable, (b) of uncertain reliability but somewhat relevant to our sense of the world or (c) completely 100% irrelevant. I tend to look at the data and slot it as (b), you look at it and slot it (c)

Got it. I can see wanting to have independent verification, of course. At the same time, "I can't put any value on this at all" seems like a quirky overreaction.

It's a 2006 study of taxi versus regular drivers.

Why is it disturbing?

I don't know why that is the wrong comparison. I thin the idea of self-driving cars is that they're going to take over all driving, not just replace taxis.

I don't get it. The comparison is on a per-mile-driven basis.

As I read these numbers, Waymo still alot safer than taxi drivers.
www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/n...
That Wild Taxi Ride Is Safer Than You Think, a Study Says (Published 2006)
www.nytimes.com

Reposted by David Levinson

I'm a fan of profs looking back on their past articles and pointing out their weaknesses. (I've suggested before that senior profs should write articles, "Where I Went Wrong.") Here, Penn's Dave Hoffman does that with one of his well known articles. Kudos.
profhoffman.substack.com/p/not-my-bes...

As for the limited number of schools, there's a market in professors, based largely on their scholarship. So, for example, Danielle (in the top 5) didn't start at Virginia; she started at Maryland, wrote great stuff, lateraled to BU; wrote more great stuff, lateraled again, etc.

I think you just called out a particular professor to say that no one should call out that particular professor.

Of possible interest, HeinOnline has some new rankings of most-cited legal scholars. Here's the most cited legal scholars in order based on journal cites in the last five years (see last column for the numbers).
heinonline.org/HOL/scholarl...