Transformers for Classifying Fourth Amendment Elements and Factors Tests

Determining if a court has applied a bright-line or totality-of-thecircumstances rule for Fourth Amendment cases demonstrates a difficult problem even for human lawyers and justices. Determining the type of test that governs an issue is essential to answering a legal question. Modern natural language processing (NLP) tools, such as transformers, demonstrate the capacity to extract relevant features from unlabelled text. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of the BERT, RoBERTa, and ALBERT transformer models to classify Fourth Amendment cases by bright-line or totality-of-the-circumstances rule. Two approaches are considered in which models are trained with either positive language extracted by a domainexpert or with full texts of cases. Transformers attain up to 92.31% accuracy on full texts, further demonstrating the capability of NLP techniques on domain-specific tasks even without handcrafted features.

[1]  Randy Goebel,et al.  Combining Similarity and Transformer Methods for Case Law Entailment , 2019, ICAIL.

[2]  Guokun Lai,et al.  RACE: Large-scale ReAding Comprehension Dataset From Examinations , 2017, EMNLP.

[3]  Kevin Robert Glandon Bright Lines on the Road: The Fourth Amendment, the Automatic Companion Rule, the "Automatic Container" Rule, and a New Rule for Drug- or Firearm-Related Traffic Stop Companion Searches Incident to Lawful Arrest , 2009 .

[4]  Jacob Cohen A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[5]  Nikolaos Aletras,et al.  Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective , 2016, PeerJ Comput. Sci..

[6]  Boaz Barak,et al.  Deep double descent: where bigger models and more data hurt , 2019, ICLR.

[7]  Luis Sanchez,et al.  Easing Legal News Monitoring with Learning to Rank and BERT , 2020, ECIR.

[8]  Aaron H. Mendelsohn The Fourth Amendment and Traffic Stops: Bright-Line Rules in Conjunction with the Totality of the Circumstances Test , 1998 .

[9]  Ioannis Anagnostopoulos,et al.  Network Analysis in the Legal Domain: A complex model for European Union legal sources , 2015, J. Complex Networks.

[10]  Michael R. Smith Advanced Legal Writing: Theories and Strategies in Persuasive Writing , 2002 .

[11]  Lukasz Kaiser,et al.  Attention is All you Need , 2017, NIPS.

[12]  Omer Levy,et al.  RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach , 2019, ArXiv.

[13]  Thomas Frei,et al.  An Artificial Intelligence Approach To Legal Reasoning , 2016 .

[14]  Percy Liang,et al.  Know What You Don’t Know: Unanswerable Questions for SQuAD , 2018, ACL.

[15]  A. Alschuler Bright Line Fever and the Fourth Amendment , 1984 .

[16]  Ion Androutsopoulos,et al.  Neural Legal Judgment Prediction in English , 2019, ACL.

[17]  Kevin D. Ashley Book review: Artificial Intelligence and Legal Analytics: New Tools for Law Practice in the Digital Age , 2015 .

[18]  Ming-Wei Chang,et al.  BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding , 2019, NAACL.

[19]  Kevin D. Ashley,et al.  Segmenting U.S. Court Decisions into Functional and Issue Specific Parts , 2018, JURIX.

[20]  Yiming Yang,et al.  The Enron Corpus: A New Dataset for Email Classi(cid:12)cation Research , 2004 .

[21]  Serena Villata,et al.  A low-cost, high-coverage legal named entity recognizer, classifier and linker , 2017, ICAIL.

[22]  Kevin D. Ashley Case-based reasoning and its implications for legal expert systems , 1992, Artificial Intelligence and Law.