Searching the brain: The fourth amendment implications of brain-based deception detection devices

American Journal of Bioethics

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 62-63

  Boire, Richard G ^a  

^a Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; BRAIN MAPPING; CIVIL RIGHTS; FORENSIC MEDICINE; FREEDOM; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; LEGAL APPROACH; LEGAL ASPECT; NEUROLOGIC EXAMINATION; NOTE; PRIVACY; PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY; THINKING; UNITED STATES;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; LEGAL APPROACH;

BRAIN MAPPING; CIVIL RIGHTS; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES, NEUROLOGICAL; FREEDOM; HUMANS; LIE DETECTION; PRIVACY; PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY; THINKING; UNITED STATES;

EID: 27744593725     PISSN: 15265161     EISSN: 15360075     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15265160590960933     Document Type: Note

References (9)

1. Boire, R. G. 2000. On cognitive liberty. Journal of Cognitive Liberties 1(1): 7-13.
2. California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988).
3. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
4. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).
5. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).
6. Pavlidis, I., and J. Levine. 2002. Thermal image analysis for polygraph testing. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine 21(6): 56-64.
7. United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983).
8. United States v. Van Leeuwen, 397 U.S. 249 (1970).
9. Wolpe, P. R., K. Foster, and D. Langleben. 2005. Emerging neurotechnologies for lie-detection: Promises and perils. The American Journal of Bioethics 5(2): 39-49.