مدى تعارض قاعدة الطرف الثالث مع الحق في الخصوصية وفق التعديل الرابع لدستور الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية : دراسة تطبيقية في القانون المقارن

Abstract EN

The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1967 in the Katz v.

United States states that “what a person voluntarily displays to the public, even in his home or office, is not subject to the protection of the Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution,” meaning that a person does not have a right to privacy about information that he voluntarily provides to third parties, and this rule is called In the American legal system the third-party rule.

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution states that "citizens have the right to be secure in their persons, homes, papers, and baggage against unlawful searches and seizures, which may not be violated, and no orders shall be issued, but only on the basis of a possible cause or suspicion." The third-party rule has been heavily criticized for unnecessarily restricting the right to privacy, but regardless of the Supreme Court's opinion of the rule that citizens are not entitled to Fourth Amendment protection when they share information with one another, the third-party rule is largely entrenched in other areas of the Case law for the Fourth Amendment.

The importance of the study is that the criminal procedure system in any country aims to protect the state’s right to punishment in addition to its keenness to protect the innocent.

Every procedural system must guarantee the necessary means to prevent it from violating rights and liberties, and for this purpose, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was approved, which recognized the right to privacy so as to secure individuals from the abuse of law enforcement authorities in searches and seizures, but the practical reality imposes some Considerations, and in this study we are exposed to one of the established rules in the judicial system in the United States of America, which is the rule of the third party, and its conflict with the right to privacy in light of according to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, as well as the impact of scientific development in the field of modern communications on it.

This study aims to a new understanding of the third-party rule, as it is one of the stable rules in the acceptance of evidence in the judicial system of the United States of America, whether at the federal or state level, and critics of this rule in American jurisprudence see that it is a choice between all or nothing, a choice between the protection of the Fourth amendment, the right to privacy or no protection at all, with the need to note that excluding this rule from the judicial system in the United States would create an illogical and constitutional vacuum that is illogical and inconsistent with a free society, and the third-party rule serves two important roles: First: Prevent disturbing influences For technological development and progress according to the Fourth Amendment on the work of law enforcement authorities, and the second: to enhance clarity of the rules of the Fourth Amendment.

The position of the Egyptian legislator regarding the adoption of the third-party rule: The Egyptian legislator does not know the stable third-party rule in the judicial system of the United States of America, and therefore the study will depend on clarifying the rulein the American legal system, and in the conclusion we present a number of recommendations to take advantage of the rule in the Egyptian legal system.