Free. Online. Advance registration required.

Register HERE.

As we commemorate Bill of Rights Day, the Fourth Amendment takes center stage in this critical discussion on privacy, surveillance, and policing. This panel will delve into the complexities surrounding the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures in today’s rapidly evolving digital and social landscape. 

The conversation will address three pressing issues: the privacy rights of individuals on probation and parole, particularly in the context of electronic monitoring; the ongoing debate over "stop and frisk" practices and their implications for civil liberties; and the presence of police in schools, exploring the impact on students' rights and educational environments. 

Panelists will explore how these issues intersect with broader concerns about racial justice, public safety, and constitutional freedoms. By examining recent legal challenges, policy reforms, and personal experiences, this discussion aims to illuminate the current state of Fourth Amendment rights and the path forward in safeguarding these fundamental liberties. 

Justice 101 is a discussion series examining the history of the justice system in America, from its founding to today, and the impact it has on society, citizens, and the world. Justice 101 programs are free and take place monthly. You can join us live at the times listed, or watch the discussions back anytime on YouTube. Justice 101 is designed for learners of all ages. 

---

Panelists:

 Robert Frommer (he/him) serves as a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice. Robert is the Director of the Institute for Justice’s Project on the Fourth Amendment, which litigates to increase search and seizure protections for all Americans. As part of that effort, Robert litigated Snitko v. FBI, a case holding that the FBI’s blanket search of hundreds of safe-deposit boxes based on a warrant it obtained with a ruse violated the Fourth Amendment. He also is fighting in state courts to roll back the federal “open fields doctrine,” which wrongfully denies people constitutional protection in most private land in this country. Lastly, Robert also litigates First Amendment cases involving commercial speech and cities’ attempts to prohibit signs based on what they depict. 

 Clark Neily (he/him) is Senior Vice President for Legal Studies at the Cato Institute. His areas of interest include constitutional law, individual rights, overcriminalization, coercive plea bargaining, and police accountability. Before joining Cato in 2017, Neily was a senior attorney and constitutional litigator at the Institute for Justice and Director of the Institute’s Center for Judicial Engagement. He has been an adjunct professor at the University of Texas and George Mason’s Antonin Scalia School of Law, and he served as co-counsel in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun. He received a Bachelor of Arts in Plan II (with concentrations in philosophy and Russian) from the University of Texas at Austin, and he also received his law degree from the University of Texas, where he was Chief Articles Editor of the Texas Law Review. Neily is the author of Terms of Engagement: How Our Courts Should Enforce the Constitution’s Promise of Limited Government.