Ring Ring ... No Answer, No Warrant, No Problem? A Look into a Hidden Cost of Home Surveillance Technology

This Comment analyzes the exigent circumstance doctrine as applied to law enforcement’s obtainment of home surveillance data from a provider of such technology. Part II of this Comment provides a case study of one major home surveillance technology provider, Amazon Ring. This Comment uses Amazon Ring to analyze a broader range of issues that pertain not only to Amazon Ring, but to all home surveillance technology providers. Part III analyzes the relevant background law of the Fourth Amendment. Part IV describes the ways that law enforcement can currently obtain home surveillance data. It discusses how the third-party doctrine, which generally maintains that there is no legitimate expectation of privacy in information a person voluntarily turns over to third parties, likely does not apply in the home surveillance context. It further argues that individuals maintain a legitimate expectation of privacy in this type of data. As courts have not yet considered law enforcement’s exigent obtainment of home surveillance data from camera providers, this Section analyzes how the traditional exigencies might play out in a variety of factual situations. Part V proposes that courts should utilize a rebuttable presumption against the exigent obtainment of home surveillance data. To rebut the presumption against exigent obtainment of the data, this Comment proposes that courts require law enforcement to show a reasonably identifiable victim that it seeks to protect from harm of death or serious physical injury.