This wiki has been closed because there have been no edits or logs made within the last 60 days. This wiki is now eligible for being adopted. To adopt this wiki please go to Requests for adoption and make a request. If this wiki is not adopted within 6 months it may be deleted. Note: If you are a bureaucrat on this wiki you can go to Special:ManageWiki and uncheck the "closed" box to reopen it.

Joyner v. United States

From ModelUSGov Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Joyner v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court
Argued November 11, 2020
Decided December 24, 2020
Full case nameAlex Joyner v. United States of America
Docket no.20-21
Citations20-21 M.S.Ct. 1
ArgumentOral argument
Opinion announcementOpinion announcement
Case history
PriorDefendant convicted (S.D. Ga. 2020); summ. aff'd (Dix. Cir. 2020)
There is no privacy interest in a mugshot and a publicity photo openly shared on the Internet. United States Court of Appeals for the Dixie Circuit affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Associate Justices
JJEagleHawk  · CuriositySMBC  · Joseph Ibney  · Dobs  · BSDDC  · Dewey Cheatem
Case opinions
MajorityJJEagleHawk (Parts I-III, IV-A, IV-B, IV-C and V), joined by SHOCKULAR, CuriositySMBC and BSDDC
PluralityJJEagleHawk (Part IV-D), joined by SHOCKULAR and CuriositySMBC
ConcurrenceSHOCKULAR, joined by JJEagleHawk and CuriositySMBC
ConcurrenceBSDDC, joined by Ibney and Cheatem
ConcurrenceCheatem, joined by BSDDC (in part) and Ibney
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. IV

Joyner v. United States, 20-21 M.S.Ct. 1 (2020), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court on December 24, 2020, that pertained to use of a facial recognition system by law enforcement to positively identify Alex Joyner, a suspect in a homicide case whose face had been captured by cameras leaving the scene of the crime. A majority of the court affirmed Joyner's conviction, finding that he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the specific images used by the facial recognition algorithm to identify him, but the heavily divided court disagreed on several other aspects of the judgment and issued an unprecedented seven opinions.

See also