has not, and the text of the Fourth Amendment remains the same. 3 The Fourth Amendment
|
|
- Elwin Lane
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 OH, THE PLACE S YOU LL GO WITH YOUR CELL PHONE AND THE PRIVACY YOU LL FORGO I. INTRODUCTION Sixteen years ago, the CEO of a major computer company starkly said, You ll have zero privacy anyway. Get over it. 1 And, he may be right. Technology, and the use of it, has erupted and drastically changed American lives. 2 Yet, while technology has changed, the Constitution has not, and the text of the Fourth Amendment remains the same. 3 The Fourth Amendment reads: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrant s shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 4 Finding harmony been the text of the Fourth Amendment and technology has plagued the courts, and most recently the Eleventh Circuit. The Court in Davis 5 refused to expand the notion of a search under the Fourth Amendment 6 and in doing so chose to reiterate the third-party doctrine thereby upholding both legal 7 and statutory precedent. 8 The Court was faced with deciding what a search under the Fourth Amendment looks like in terms of a court order allowing historical cell tower data to be seized by the government. For starters, it does not look like a search at all. Historically, the Fourth Amendment search clause is analyzed under one of two doctrines, the trespass doctrine or the reasonableness doctrine. 9 Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is aware of the advancements of technology and courts have responded to technology through both doctrines. 10 Congress too has responded. In response to the advancement of electronic communication, Congress enacted statues with specificity towards electronic communications. 11 1
2 The Stored Communications Act ( SCA ) require[s] the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication services of the contents of a wire or electronic communication that is in electronic storage in an electronic communication system by a governmental entity. 12 Under 2703(d) of the SCA, to obtain the data, a court order for disclosure... may be issued by any court that is a court of competent jurisdiction and shall is only if the governmental entity offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the evidence sought is related to an investigation. 13 This note explores the matrix of caselaw regarding the Fourth Amendment, and the Court s unwillingness to expand the right to privacy to apply to some types of technology. This note further analyzes why the Fourth Amendment does not and should not protect the third-party production of historical cell tower data. Part II of this note will narrate the history of privacy under the Fourth Amendment s trespass doctrine and reasonableness doctrine. Part III reviews the Davis opinion in depth, including the events leading up to the decision. Part IV argues that the Davis ruling is the logical next step for inferior courts to take, which preserves the fundamental law, while at the same time acknowledges the expansion of technology. Part V offers a final reflection. II. THE WAXING AND WANING OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT The contemporary method of analyzing the Fourth Amendment is derived from the concurring justice in Katz. 14 Justice Harlan outlined a two-pronged test that asks first, does individual have a actual (subjective) expectation or privacy, and second, is this expectation one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. 15 This is known as the reasonableexpectation-of-privacy test. 16 However, this has not always been the method. 17 Primitive Fourth Amendment jurisprudence recognizes an individual s property rights in his persons, houses, papers, and effects, and violating such property rights is considered trespass. 18 However, 2
3 historical phone data, as will be demonstrated, cannot be trespassed upon, thereby indicating that if it must fall under the Fourth Amendment, it would be through the reasonableness doctrine. A. WE DO NOT FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US The Supreme Court recently 19 invoked eighteenth century logic to awaken the notion that the government s physical intrusion on [a] defendant s private property was a search and violated the Fourth Amendment. 20 Justice Scalia uttered the same words that the court in Entick 21 spoke, our law holds the property of every man so scared, that no man can set his food upon his neighbors close without his leave; if he does he is a trespasser... if he will tread upon his neighbor s ground, he must justify by law. 22 Therefore, to understand the Fourth Amendment, one must understand that until the latter half of the 20th century the Fourth Amendment was tied to common-law trespass. 23 The Supreme Court in Knotts and Karo ruled on the constitutionality of a tracking device put within a container in a car. In Knotts 24 the Court upheld the placement of a beeper 25 into a container 26 carried in Knotts car in which the police then tracked. 27 The Supreme Court ruled that the police did not violate the Fourth Amendment by monitoring the beeper s signal to locate the suspect because during the entire time he was being monitored, the suspect was either traveling on public roads or clearly visible from a public location, thereby the police never trespassed upon his property. 28 The next year, the Court ruled that trespass had occurred in Karo. 29 The facts in Karo line up similar to Knotts, however, the distinction lies in the fact that Karo brought the container within his home. 30 The Court stated that the Government could not be completely free from the constraints of the Fourth Amendment... whether a particular article... is in an individuals home Therefore, [t]he critical different between Knotts and Karo was not how the location information was ascertained, but rather where the beepers 3
4 were while broadcasting their location to the police. 32 In short, these two cases stand for the proposition that the Fourth Amendment can only be invoked with relation to tracking devices when the line is crossed (i.e. trespass) from a public sphere into the home. 33 The most recent tracking case is Jones. 34 In Jones, police installed a GPS tracking device on the undercarriage of [Jones ] Jeep while it was parked in a public parking lot. 35 Through this device, the police obtained specific locational data that connected Jones to drug crimes. 36 The Court refused to allow the data as evidence because the installation of the GPS trespassed upon Jones effect, i.e. his jeep. 37 However, the concurrence did not view the case through the trespass lens, instead choosing to deploy a different theory, the reasonableness doctrine. 38 B. NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE THIRD-PARTY DOCTRINE Individuals do not have any reasonable-expectation-of-privacy in the business records owned and maintained by a third-party business. 39 In Miller, 40 the Government was investigating Mr. Miller for tax fraud, and during the investigation subpoenaed two banks to obtain records of his accounts. 41 The Supreme Court held that no Fourth Amendment protections were afforded to Miller regarding the records because he did not have ownership nor procession of them. 42 Further, the records were the business records of the bank that were not classified as confidential communication. 43 Finally the Court declared, information voluntarily conveyed here, by the depositor of the records, takes the risk, in revealing his affairs to another, that the information will be conveyed by that person to the Government. 44 Through Miller, the thirdparty doctrine was born. 45 If the Supreme Court left any doubt regarding the third-party doctrine regarding one s reasonable expectation of privacy in third parties, the Supreme Court in Smith 46 held that telephone users have no reasonable expectation of privacy in dialed telephone numbers recorded 4
5 through pen registers and contained in the third-party telephone company s records. 47 At the request of the police, the telephone company installed a pen register... to record the numbers dialed from the telephone of [Smith s] home. 48 From the pen register, information was gathered to indict Smith. 49 The Court rejected the notion that the numbers gathered from the information was Smith s property. 50 The Court further said we doubt, that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial and [a]ll telephone users realize that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company. 51 Therefore, the Smith Court reiterated the premise first articulated in Miller, a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. 52 The caselaw above is explicitly clear: information given to a third party is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. 53 However, what it fails to do is analyze the Fourth Amendment with respect to historical cell locational data from cell phone towers. While the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue, three circuits 54 have. At the center of all three cases 55 was the same Federal Statute, 18 U.S.C. 2703, and whether a warrant was needed to substantiated the specific and articulable facts. The Third Circuit failed to articulate any substantial decision 56 on this issue besides stating, [a] warrant requires probable cause, but there is no such explicit requirement for securing a 2703(d) order. 57 The Fifth Circuit upheld 2703(d) in, In re Application of the United States of America for Historical Data Set 58 ( In re Application ) and deemed no warrant was per se necessary, but ultimately deferred to the legislature for future guidance. 59 In In re Application, the Government filed three applications under 2703 requesting a court order to compel the cell phone service provider for a particular cell phone to produce sixty days of historical cell site data and other subscriber information, however, a judge denied each historical data set request. The judge gave 5
6 the Government a chance to submit a brief, but ultimately denied the historical data set request all together because considering Supreme Court precedent and the facts presented, the Government needed a warrant to get the data under The government subsequently appealed. On appeal, the Court conducted a statutory analysis 61 of 2703 before turning to the constitutional question. On the constitutional question, the Court focused the issue not on what is being recorded, but who records it. 62 Looking at the statute through this lens, the Court said, [t]he third party [telephone company] can store data disclosed to it at its discretion. And once an individual exposes his information to a third party, it can be used for any purpose. 63 The next step the Court made was to develop the notion that even though the third party in this case must have possession of the records of the cell phone user, 64 the cell site information is clearly a business record. 65 The Court then turned to the voluntary notion 66 and acknowledged the knowledge cell phone users have of their phone s transmissions. 67 Further, in ruling that cell phone usage is voluntary, the Court made a point to address the advancement in technology by stating [n]ew technology may provide increased convenience or security at the expense of privacy, and many people may find the tradeoff worth-while. 68 Ultimately, if the people have an issue with this tradeoff, 69 it is up to legislature to determine the boundaries, and since they have done so through 2703, the constitutionality should stand. 70 III. DAVIS V. UNITED STATES : LIL WAYNE GOES TO PRISON Few things demonstrate the widespread digitalization of our society more than the dramatic transformation of mobile telephones over the past two decades and the increasing reliance upon... these devices in our everyday lives. 71 Few things indeed- including Mr. Davis using his cell phone to communicate while committing a series of armed robberies within two months. 72 The central question addressed in Davis was whether the court order authorized by 6
7 the Stored Communication Act, 2703(d), compelling the production of a third-party s business records containing historical cell tower location information violated Davis s Fourth Amendment rights. 73 The Eleventh Circuit, en banc, ruled that Davis s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated, and the order was constitutional. 74 Davis was suspected of a series of armed robberies in South Florida between August and October Davis was incited, and upon his arrest, the government acquired MetroPCS s 76 business records by court order pursuant to 2703(d). 77 These business records were used in addition to the insurmountable evidence the Government already had against Davis. 78 To obtain the MetroPCS records, the Government had to produce specific and articulable facts showing reasonable grounds 79 for a court order, per 2703(d). The Government provided a detailed summary of the evidence implicating Davis in the seven robberies, including post-miranda statements from two accomplices and DNA evidence. 80 On this evidence, the order was granted. MetroPCS complied and produced the following information: (1) telephone numbers of calls made by and to Davis s cell phone; (2) whether the call was outgoing or incoming; (3) the date, time, and duration of the call; (4) the number assigned to the cell tower that wirelessly connected the calls from and to Davis; and (5) the sector number associated with the tower. For ease of reference, the fourth and fifth items are collectively called historical cell tower location information. 81 This information the historical cell tower data did not reveal any contents of Davis s calls such as text messages or voice recordings, and the only information gathered was when the phone was being used to dial or receive a phone call. 82 Prior to trial, Davis attempted to suppress this evidence by claiming it violated his rights guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment; however, the district court denied the motion. 83 7
8 Davis was tried before a jury, during which the historical cell data was introduced. A custodian of records from MetroPCS, identified and testified about the business records testifying that MetroPCS s toll records... are created and maintained in the regular course of its business. 84 The business records, allowed the government to determine the precise physical location of the cell towers that connected calls made by and to Davis s cell phone around the time of robberies, not the precise location of the cell phone or of Davis. 85 Unsurprisingly, Davis objected to this evidence, and again the district court overruled the objection. 86 A jury convicted Davis and he was sentenced to 1,941 months in prison. 87 Davis appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. In hearing the case, a panel for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Davis s rights were violated through the Government s obtainment of stored telephone communications records from MetroPCS, a third-party telephone service, provider. 88 However, the conviction stood. 89 The Eleventh Circuit, en banc, began their analysis by stating, Davis can assert neither ownership nor possession of the third-party s business records. 90 Therefore, as this statement indicates, the court analyzed the case through the third-party doctrine. Under which, the Court held Davis was aware that his cell phone information could be stored by the company, which is likely why he used the alias Lil Wayne. 91 Further, the Court addressed the advancement of technology by comparing the facts to Miller, by stating the method of call connecting does not require a different constitutional result just because the telephone company has decided to automate. 92 The Court refuted the theory that Jones applies 93 because no physical intrusion occurred. 94 After refuting Jones, the Court addressed the reasonableness clause. 95 The Court said, Davis s alleged privacy expectation were minimal because there was no overhearing or recording of any conversations nor a GPS real-time tracking of precise movements and the 8
9 order was based on a neutral and detached magistrate [] [finding] based on specific and articulable facts... reasonable grounds to believe the records were relevant. 96 The Court concluded by stressing the necessary balance between the prevention of criminals from committing future offences to the societal interest in vindicating the rights of the innocent. 97 And because of this balance, Davis had at most a diminished expectation of privacy in the business records and the disclosure of such records pursuant to a court order authorized by Congress served substantial government interest. 98 A concurring judge wrote to articulate, as judges of an inferior court, we must leave the Supreme Court the task of developing exceptions to the rules it has required us to apply. 99 The dissenting judges however refuted the idea of the third-party doctrine and instead believed that a warrant was needed to allow the search. 100 IV. COMPELLING THE PRODUCTION OF A THIRD-PARTY TELEPHONE COMPANY S BUSINESS RECORDS CONTAINING HISTORICAL CELL TOWER DATA DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT A. THE CART REMAINS BEHIND THE HORSE The Court in Davis refused to put the metaphorical cart before the horse, and instead chose to keep in place the third-party doctrine, and ultimately constitutional precedent dating to While the concurrence in Jones suggests that perhaps we are at an age where the doctrine no longer applies, this argument is specious. The idea that the Fourth Amendment should suddenly protect the information you reveal to a third-party will create a chilling effect for years to come. We all carry our cell phones or use the interest, and time and time again we are told whatever we say or do on the internet, to wit Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat can and will get out. It is no secret that the information we put into our cell phones will escape the screen. And, as Miller and Smith both articulate, when information is given to a third party, it cannot be protected
10 As a Supreme Court justice once wrote [w]ays may some day be developed by which the Government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a jury the most intimate occurrences of the home. 103 This day has come, however this quote indicates the importance of the Fourth Amendment to remain neutral to the changes of technology. 104 Therefore, [j]ust as the Fourth Amendment should protect that which technology exposes, so should the Fourth Amendment permit which technology hides. 105 Therefore, for the Fourth Amendment to remain neutral, the rulings in Miller and Smith 106 hold true to a more advanced form of technology a cell phone, which emits historical cell tower data when in use. The third-party doctrine in relation to business records, established in Miller, 107 subsequently applies to all third-parties in relation to business records, including here. As the Court said in In re Application, the issue is not what is recorded, but who records it. 108 Therefore, as the Court in Davis articulated, it was MetroPCS who recorded the data, through the normal course of businesses, and the Government obtained the data ex post facto. The Fourth Amendment must remain neutral to technology, therefore to do so the theories articulated in Smith, Miller, and In re Application must hold true for Davis. B. NO GEORGE ORWELL S 1984 EXISTS IN 2015 The Fourth Amendment was drafted with the purpose of safeguard[ing] the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by government officials. 109 The Court s ruling in Davis reiterates this point. The Government did not usurp the power from the people; rather, the Government was compliant with the statutory requirements of 2703(d). Enough evidence was provided to a neutral and detached magistrate to show specific and articulable facts to demonstrate that there are reasonable grounds to believe the information is relevant and material to a criminal investigation. 110 The Government did not become the ominous Big Brother and secretly collected Davis s records to build a case against him. Rather, the 10
11 Government had enough evidence to prove to a neutral and detached magistrate that Davis s telephone locational data was reasonably tied to the facts presented before him. The Eleventh Circuit emphasized that at no point did the Government overstep its authority given by Congress to obtain MetroPCS s business records. Davis differs from the Jones and Karo fact pattern, and rather more closely follows the Knotts fact pattern. In both Jones and Karo, the Government monitored the defendant in a manner that violated the Fourth Amendment s trespass clause. While in Knotts and Davis, no trespass ever occurred and no home or effect was ever trespassed upon. Furthermore, Davis s information was gathered ex post facto, while the information Knotts was real time tracking. While some may distinguish that Knotts differs because the police tracked Mr. Knotts from a public thoroughfare, the difference is immaterial because at no point in Davis was Davis ever tracked, only the location of the closest cell tower data was complied by the Government. No line, from public into the constitutionally protected private sphere, was ever crossed. The concurrence in Jones notes the that Government s ability to record an individual s movement may violate the Fourth Amendment, however in Davis it would be impossible for the Government to do such. The data collected was not live tracking, it was not location specific, and it only worked when the phone was placing or receiving a call. The analogy between Jones and Davis should be refuted on all accords; there was no trespass and no GPS that provided a specific detail of movements. Therefore, it was not the work of overly zealous, overreaching police work, it was ultimately the work statutory compliance, and the Eleventh Circuit held true to the precedent before it by not expanding the Fourth Amendment s trespass clause to include historical cell phone data. 11
12 C. WHO S GOT THE POWER The Court left open the notion that something more 111 could violate one s reasonable expectation of privacy. However, while admitting this, it is also important to recognize that it is not the Eleventh Circuit, nor any inferior court s job to overrule 2703(d). 112 The power to overrule this statute belongs in the hands of either Congress or the Supreme Court. 113 Using the felicitous words of Judge Hand, embrace the exhilarating opportunity of anticipating the overruling of the Supreme Court decision.... [t]hat is the Supreme Court has given reason to doubt the rule s breadth, it alone must decide the exception to its rule. 114 This principle was followed in Davis, In Re Application, and the Third Circuit by strictly applying 2703(d) 115 to the facts before them. It is not the job of the inferior courts to deem a federal statute unconstitutional; it is the job of the Supreme Court, or Congress. To do otherwise, would overstep the bounds of the American Jurisprudence. V. CONCLUSION The Eleventh Circuit accurately followed the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence before it. The Court rejected the idea of creating a new caveat to trespass or reasonableness doctrine. In doing so, the Eleventh Circuit kept the Fourth Amendment neutral to technology and the balance between the criminal and the innocent remains same. While the Supreme Court precedent speaks volumes, it fails to address the specific question articulated in Davis. It would be wrong to say the issue regarding historical cell tower data is not an issue for the Supreme Court, or the issue is not ripe is a federal statute, which deals with the privacy of data collection, the potential privacy implications matter. Technology has dramatically advanced since 1976, and while the text of the Fourth Amendment remains the same, our idea of privacy, or lack thereof, likely has not. 12
13 1 Kyle Malone, The Fourth Amendment and the Stored Communications Act: Why the Warrantless Gathering of Historical Cell Site Location Information Poses No Threat to Privacy, 39 PEPP. L. REV. 701, 741 (2012) (emphasis added) (in response to a question asked about online privacy). 2 See generally Mathew S. Adams, The Great Cell Phone Tower Data Debate Bound To Hit SCOTUS Docket Soon Are We Living In George Orwell s 1984?, E-DISCOVERY STAGE, (January 2, 2015), (last viewed June 16, 2015). 3 See U.S. CONST. amend. IV. 4 Id. 5 United States v. Davis, 785 F.3d 498 (11th Cir. 2015) (en banc). 6 See generally Orin Kerr, Eleventh Circuit Rules for the Feds on Cell-Site Records But Then Overreaches, THE WASHINGTON POST, (May 5, 2015), (last visited June 30, 2015). 7 See generally United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976); see also Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979); United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983); United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984). 8 See generally, 18 U.S.C See Davis, 785 F.3d at See generally Nathaniel Wackman, Historical Cellular Location Information And The Fourth Amendment, 1 U. ILL. L. REV. 263, 283 (2015) (citing United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). 13
14 11 See In re Application of the United States for an Order Directing Provider of Elec. Commc ns Serv. to Disclose Records to the Gov t., 620 F.3d 304, 306 (3d Cir. 2010) U.S.C U.S.C. 2703(d) (emphasis added). 14 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). 15 Nathaniel Wackman, Historical Cellular Location Information And The Fourth Amendment, 1 U. ILL. L. REV. 263 (2015) (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967)). 16 Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 739 (1979) (citing Katz, 389 U.S. 347). 17 See United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 949 (2012). 18 See id. cf. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31 (2001) to be specific. 20 United States v. Davis, 785 F.3d 498, 513 (11th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (citing United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 948 (2012)). 21 Entick v. Carrigan, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1756). 22 United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 949 (2012) (quoting Entick v. Carrigan, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1756)). 23 Id. 24 United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). 25 Wackman, supra note 15, at (The tracking device which emitted a radio-signal pulse at regular intervals and could only be followed manually by a police office... who stayed within signal rant to avoid looking track of the device. ). 26 Which was subsequently bought by the defendant in the store. 27 Malone, supra note 1, at
15 28 Malone, supra note 1, at 714 (citing Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 at ). 29 United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984). 30 Malone, supra note 1, at Malone, supra note 1, at 715 (quoting Karo, 468 U.S. 705 at 718). 32 Malone, supra note 1, at See generally United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983); see also (United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984)). 34 United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012). 35 Id. at Id. 37 Id. at 949 ( The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. ). 38 Id. at 957 (Sotomayor, J., concurring) ( it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. ). 39 United States v. Davis, 785 F.3d 498, 507 (11th Cir. 2015) (en banc) ((citing Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, (1979) (citing United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976))). 40 United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976). 41 Id. at Id. at Id. at Id. at 443 (citing United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745, (1971)). 45 Orin S. Kerr, The Case For the Third-Party Doctrine, 107:56 MICH. L. REV. 561, 563 (2009). 15
16 ( The rule is simple: By disclosing to a third party, the subject gives up all of his Fourth Amendment rights in the information revealed. ). 46 Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). 47 United States v. Davis, 785 F.3d 498, 508 (11th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (citing Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, (1979)). 48 Smith, 442 U.S. at Id. at Id. at 741 (The court acclaimed that [s]ince the pen register was installed on telephone company property at the telephone company s central offices, [Smith] obviously [could not] claim that his property was invaded or that police intruded into a constitutionally protected area. ). 51 Id. at Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, (1979). 53 See generally Smith, 442 U.S. at 739; see also United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976). 54 The Third Circuit and Fifth Circuit will only be discussed in this section, the Eleventh Circuit s decision will be discussed infra III. 55 Respectively within each circuit. 56 In re Application of the United States For an Order Directing Provider of Elec. Commc ns Serv. To Disclose Records to the Gov t., 620 F.3d 304 (3d Cir. 2010). The Court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. 57 Id. at In re Application of the United States of Am. For Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2013). 16
17 59 See id. at Id. at Id. at 607 (Determining that 2703 abides by the cardinal principle of statutory construction by having no clause, sentence or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant. ). 62 See id. at Id. at In re Application of the United States of Am. For Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600, 611 (5th Cir. 2013) (The Court defines business records as records of transactions to which the record-keeper is a party also fits well with the historical and statutory distinction between communications content and addressing information and addressing information, which the business needs to route those communications [ s, telephone calls] appropriately and efficiently are not. ). 65 Id. at Articulated in United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976). 67 In re Application, at 613 ((citing United States v. Madison, No CR, 2012 WL , at *8 (S.D.Fla. July 20, 2012) [C]ell-phone users have knowledge that whey they place or receive calls, they, through their cell phones, are transmitting signals to the nearest cell towers, and, thus, to their communications service providers. ). 68 Id. at Id. at 610 (quoting SEC v. Jerry T. O Brien, Inc., 467 U.S. 735, 743 (1984)( [i]t is established that, when a person communicates information to a third party even on the understanding that the communication is confidential, he cannot object if the third party conveys that information or records thereof to law enforcement authorities. ). 17
18 70 See In re Application of the United States of Am. For Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600, (5th Cir. 2013). 71 Adams, supra note United States v. Davis, 785 F.3d 498, 500 (11th Cir. 2015) (en banc). 73 Id. at See id. 75 Id. 76 Id. at 511(MetroPCS stored cell tower records ). 77 Id. at United States v. Davis, 785 F.3d 498, 501 (11th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (The Government had testimony from two co-defendants, eyewitness testimony, surveillance videos, and DNA as evidence against Davis) U.S.C. 2703(d). 80 Davis, 785 F.3d at Id. at Id. at Id. at United States v. Davis, 785 F.3d 498, 503 (11th Cir. 2015) (en banc). 85 Id. at Id. 87 Id. at Id. at Id. at 505 based on the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. 18
19 90 United States v. Davis, 785 F.3d 498, 511 (11th Cir. 2015) (en banc). 91 Id. at Id. at 512 (quoting Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, (1979)). 93 As the panel analyzed the facts under. 94 Id. at Id. at 515 ( Historical cell tower location data is materially distinguishable from the precise, real-time GPS tacking in Jones and reasonable expectations of privacy under the Fourth Amendment do not turn on the quantity of non-content information MetroPCS collected ). 96 United States v. Davis, 785 F.3d 498, 517 (11th Cir. 2015) (en banc). 97 Id. at Id. 99 Id. at 519 (Pryor, J., concurring). 100 Id. at 533 ( [t]he judiciary must not allow the ubiquity of technology which threatens to cause greater and greater instructions into our private lives to erode our constitutional protections. ). 101 See generally United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976). 102 See generally Miller, 425 U.S. at ; see also Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). 103 Kerr, supra note 45, at Id. 105 Id. 106 Along with all other Fourth Amendment cases discussed throughout this note. 107 See generally United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976). 108 In re Application of the United States of Am. For Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 19
20 600, 610 (5th Cir. 2013). 109 Malone, supra note 1, at 714 (quoting Camara v. Mun. Ct. of S.F., 387 U.S. 523, 528 (1967)) U.S.C. 2703(d). 111 More than locational cell phone data (i.e. live tracking, GPS tracking, specific tracking). 112 See United States v. Davis, 785 F.3d 498, 519 (11th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (Pryor, J., concurring). 113 See In re Application, at Davis, at 521 (quoting Evas v. Sec y, Fla. Dep t Of Corr., 699 F.3d 1249, 1263 (11th Cir. 2010)). 115 United States v. Davis, 754 F.3d 1205, 1211 (11th Cir. 2014), reh g en banc granted, opinion vacated, 573 Fed. Appx. 925 (11th Cir. 2014) ( [T]he question of whether cell site location information is protected by the Fourth Amendment... has never been determined... [t]wo circuits have considered the question, but not in the context of the use of the evidence in a criminal proceedings. ). I hereby certify that I have completed this submission in accordance with the Competition rules and in accordance with the collaboration and academic integrity requirements of the University of Miami School of Law Honor Code. Signed
United States v. Jones: The Government s Use of a GPS Tracking Device Constitutes a Search within the Meaning of the Fourth Amendment
United States v. Jones: The Government s Use of a GPS Tracking Device Constitutes a Search within the Meaning of the Fourth Amendment On January 23rd, 2012, the United States Supreme Court handed down
More informationCase5:15-xr-90304-HRL Document22 Filed06/19/15 Page1 of 16
Case:-xr-00-HRL Document Filed0 Page of MELINDA HAAG (CABN United States Attorney DAVID R. CALLAWAY (CABN Chief, Criminal Division J. DOUGLAS WILSON (DCBN JEFFREY SCHENK (CABN Assistant United States Attorneys
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 12-12928. D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20896-JAL-2. versus
Case: 12-12928 Date Filed: 05/05/2015 Page: 1 of 102 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-12928 D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20896-JAL-2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
More informationThe United States of America (the Government ) seeks an order. pursuant to the Stored Communications Act ( SCA ) requiring various
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION : M-50 OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : FOR AN ORDER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
More informationLocation and Cell Phone Tracking: Technology, Law, and Defense Strategy
Location and Cell Phone Tracking: Technology, Law, and Defense Strategy Part 1: Location Tracking Technology Cell Site Data Fine location data: GPS / Triangulation GPS Trackers (Homing devices, e.g. Jones)
More informationFor Now, New York State Investigators Can Ping Cellphones Without A Warrant in New York State
For Now, New York State Investigators Can Ping Cellphones Without A Warrant in New York State Can New York State Inspectors General and other law enforcement agencies use real-time GPS tracking on cellphones
More information620 F.3d 304 (3d Cir. 2010).
CRIMINAL LAW STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT THIRD CIRCUIT ALLOWS GOVERNMENT TO ACQUIRE CELL PHONE TRACKING DATA WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE. In re The Application of the United States for an Order Directing a Provider
More informationDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHITE PAPER. Sharing Cyberthreat Information Under 18 USC 2702(a)(3)
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHITE PAPER Sharing Cyberthreat Information Under 18 USC 2702(a)(3) Background Improved information sharing is a critical component of bolstering public and private network owners
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR CELL TOWER RECORDS MAGISTRATE NO. H-15-136M UNDER 18 U.S.C. 2703(D) OPINION On February 10, 2015
More informationTHE NOT A SEARCH GAME
THE NOT A SEARCH GAME JOHN F. STINNEFORD * The privacy versus security discussion is not just about the Fourth Amendment it involves policy considerations as well. The Fourth Amendment concerns frame the
More information# # # # # Issue and Decision of the United States Supreme Court
Article for Minnesota Chiefs of Police Magazine: New Legal Requirements for GPS Tracking Devices By Peter Ivy and Peter Orput, MCPA Co-Counsel February, 2012 # # # # # Issue and Decision of the United
More informationxtra redit A Classroom Study of a Supreme Court of Ohio Case
xtra redit A Classroom Study of a Supreme Court of Ohio Case CELL PHONES: SEARCH AND SEIZURE Analyzing a Case Introduction The Supreme Court of Ohio in December 2009 ruled that the U.S. Constitution s
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: MAY 2, 2014; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2012-CA-000371-MR GREGORY JERMAIN LANGLEY APPELLANT APPEAL FROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Criminal No. 13-107(DSD/FLN) This matter is before the court upon the objection by
United States of America, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Criminal No. 13-107(DSD/FLN) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Michael Duane Hoffman, This matter is before the court upon the objection by
More informationTHE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT,
[Cite as State v. Brown, 142 Ohio St.3d 92, 2015-Ohio-486.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. BROWN, APPELLEE. THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. SHIPLEY, APPELLEE. THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. MCCLOUDE,
More informationIt s official: Good-faith exception part of state law By PAUL THARP, Staff Writer
It s official: Good-faith exception part of state law By PAUL THARP, Staff Writer paul.tharp@nc.lawyersweekly.com As Rep. Paul Stam sees it an injustice to the people of North Carolina has been righted
More informationUNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 10-4683
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4683 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARCO THOMAS MOORE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States
More informationCase 1:13-cr-20850-UU Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/14 11:43:07 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:13-cr-20850-UU Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/14 11:43:07 Page 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. RAFAEL COMAS, Defendant. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI
More informationConstitutional Law - Judicial Review - Legalized Gambling - Louisiana State Racing Commission
Louisiana Law Review Volume 16 Number 2 The Work of the Louisiana Supreme Court for the 1954-1955 Term February 1956 Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Legalized Gambling - Louisiana State Racing Commission
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN RE APPLICATION OF THE : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR AN ORDER PURSUANT TO : Misc. No. 01-189 (Magistrate Judge Bredar) 18 U.S.C. 2703(d)
More informationORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, v. RICARDO H. GLASCO, Defendant. Circuit Court, 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Brevard County. Case No. 05-2010-CF-021349-AXXX-XX. February 24, 2011. John M. Harris, Judge.
More informationSTATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OFMICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, v. Case No. Hon. Magistrate Judge UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
2:13-cv-12939-PJD-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 07/06/13 Pg 1 of 11 Pg ID 1 DETROIT FREE PRESS, a Michigan corporation, STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OFMICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff, v. Case No. Hon.
More informationCase 1:05-cr-10037-GAO Document 459 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL NO.
Case 1:05-cr-10037-GAO Document 459 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL NO. 05-10037-GAO-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GRANT BOYD, Defendant. O TOOLE,
More informationCase 2:03-cr-00122-JES Document 60 Filed 02/19/08 Page 1 of 7 PageID 178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION
Case 2:03-cr-00122-JES Document 60 Filed 02/19/08 Page 1 of 7 PageID 178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION FRANCIS MACKEY DAVISON, III, Petitioner, vs. Case No.
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-13-01004-CR. NICOLAS STEPHEN LLOYD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed December 22, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01004-CR NICOLAS STEPHEN LLOYD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS O P I N I O N
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS THE STATE OF TEXAS, v. JAVIER TERRAZAS, Appellant, Appellee. No. 08-12-00095-CR Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7 of El Paso County, Texas
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 12-13381 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cr-00281-RBD-JBT-1.
Case: 12-13381 Date Filed: 05/29/2013 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-13381 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cr-00281-RBD-JBT-1
More informationCase 8:13-cv-01731-VMC-TBM Document 36 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID 134 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:13-cv-01731-VMC-TBM Document 36 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID 134 JOHN and JOANNA ROBERTS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 8:13-cv-1731-T-33TBM
More informationHAS KATZ BECOME QUAINT? USE OF BIG DATA TO OUTFLANK THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. Jeffrey L. Vagle * INTRODUCTION
HAS KATZ BECOME QUAINT? USE OF BIG DATA TO OUTFLANK THE FOURTH AMENDMENT Jeffrey L. Vagle * INTRODUCTION On December 14, 2010, a federal court, upon a government motion, entered an order pursuant to the
More informationCompeting Interests: Enforcing Cybersecurity and Protecting Privacy By Ulka Ghanta
Competing Interests: Enforcing Cybersecurity and Protecting Privacy By Ulka Ghanta March 2012 What is reasonable when balancing privacy rights with a need to enforce Cyber security? The 9/11 attacks forever
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals No. 13-1186 For the Seventh Circuit IN RE: JAMES G. HERMAN, Debtor-Appellee. APPEAL OF: JOHN P. MILLER Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
More informationon petition for writ of certiorari to the supreme court of puerto rico
OCTOBER TERM, 1992 147 Syllabus EL VOCERO de PUERTO RICO et al. v. PUERTO RICO et al. on petition for writ of certiorari to the supreme court of puerto rico No. 92 949. Decided May 17, 1993 Puerto Rico
More informationWhite-Collar Crime D.C. Circuit Extends Supreme Court s Interpretation of Derivative Use Under Act of Production Immunity
LITIGATION REPORTER LITIGATION REPORTER White-Collar Crime COMMENTARY REPRINTED FROM VOLUME 20, ISSUE 12/ SEPTEMBER 2006 D.C. Circuit Extends Supreme Court s Interpretation of Derivative Use Under Act
More informationRECENT CASES. 2012). 5 See id. at 777. 6 Id. at 775.
RECENT CASES CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOURTH AMENDMENT SIXTH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT PINGING A TARGET S CELL PHONE TO OBTAIN GPS DATA IS NOT A SEARCH SUBJECT TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT. United States v. Skinner,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 10-1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. KAREN BATTLE, Appellant
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 10-1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. NOT PRECEDENTIAL KAREN BATTLE, Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District
More informationThis opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-2263 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Greer
More informationDefendant brought a Motion to Suppress the DNA Testing Results or in the alternative,
STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN COUNTY ` DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT STATE OF MINNESOTA, Plaintiff, vs. JIMMIE DALE JACKSON, File No: 04085182 ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant. Defendant
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 11-20884 Document: 00511760054 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2012 NO. 11-20884 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT IN RE: APPLICATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR HISTORICAL
More informationCriminal Law. Month Content Skills August. Define the term jurisprudence. Introduction to law. What is law? Explain several reasons for having laws.
Criminal Law Month Content Skills August Introduction to law Define the term jurisprudence. What is law? Explain several reasons for having laws. Discuss the relationship between laws and values. Give
More informationNo. 1-10-2072 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). SIXTH DIVISION JUNE 30, 2011 IN
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MICHELLE BOWERS, Petitioner, v. Case No. 2D08-3251 STATE OF FLORIDA,
More information2015 IL App (3d) 121065-U. Order filed February 26, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2015
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (3d 121065-U Order filed
More information2:05-cv-74922-GER-VMM Doc # 5 Filed 02/08/06 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 53 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:05-cv-74922-GER-VMM Doc # 5 Filed 02/08/06 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 53 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MCCONNELL ADAMS, JR., Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 05-CV-74922-DT HONORABLE
More informationA MURDER SCENE EXCEPTION TO THE 4TH AMENDMENT WARRANT REQUIREMENT?
A MURDER SCENE EXCEPTION TO THE 4TH AMENDMENT WARRANT REQUIREMENT? Bryan R. Lemons Senior Legal Instructor It is firmly ingrained in our system of law that searches conducted outside the judicial process,
More informationCase 1:14-cr-20052-JEM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/14 16:27:13 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:14-cr-20052-JEM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/14 16:27:13 Page 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, vs. ROGER BERGMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION
More information2015 IL App (1st) 133515-U. No. 1-13-3515 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st) 133515-U FIRST DIVISION November 9, 2015 No. 1-13-3515 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: MARCH 14, 2008; 2:00 P.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2007-CA-001304-MR DONALD T. CHRISTY APPELLANT v. APPEAL FROM MASON CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE STOCKTON
More informationRegulatory Reclassification of Broadband Internet Access Service is the Unsurprising Result of ISPs Inexplicable Challenges to FCC Authority
Regulatory Reclassification of Broadband Internet Access Service is the Unsurprising Result of ISPs Inexplicable Challenges to FCC Authority An Open Internet has long been a bipartisan goal in the United
More informationHow To Defend Yourself In A Tax Court
Escape Conviction when Prosecuted for a Federal Tax Crime Court, DOJ, IRS no jurisdiction without specific Section of Title 26 quoted Why, in a "Federal District Court" when charged with a "tax crime"
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:14-cr-00295-SRN-JSM Document 44 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA United States of America, Case No. 14-cr-295 (SRN/JSM) Plaintiff, v. Martel Javell Einfeldt,
More informationRecent Developments in Cybersurveillance
David W. Opderbeck New Jersey Law Journal, May 16, 2016 Over the past few months, there has been a flurry of sometimes contradictory activity concerning the government's ability to access electronic information
More informationIN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT STATE OF MISSOURI ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL CHRIS KOSTER, v. Appellant, CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., d/b/a CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS; CHARTER FIBERLINK-MISSOURI,
More informationNo. 108,809 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, SHANE RAIKES, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. No. 108,809 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. SHANE RAIKES, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT Generally, issues not raised before the district court, even constitutional
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Criminal No. 07-29-P-S ) HALVOR CARL, ) ) Defendant )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Criminal No. 07-29-P-S ) HALVOR CARL, ) ) Defendant ) RECOMMENDED DECISION ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS Halvor Carl, charged with
More informationCOMMONWEALTH vs. SHABAZZ AUGUSTINE
COMMONWEALTH vs. SHABAZZ AUGUSTINE DOCKET Suffolk Dates: October 10, 2013 - February 18, 2014 Present Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. County Suffolk Cellular Telephone.
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued October 9, 2013 Decided March
More informationIn Re Boucher United States District Court for the District of Vermont 2007 WL 4246473 (Nov. 29, 2009)
In Re Boucher United States District Court for the District of Vermont 2007 WL 4246473 (Nov. 29, 2009) JEROME J. NIEDERMEIER, United States Magistrate Judge. On December 17, 2006, defendant Sebastien Boucher
More informationOutline to HIPAA presentation
Outline to HIPAA presentation I) Overview of the HIPAA Privacy Rule regulations that relate to obtaining a person s medical records for court proceedings and law enforcement purposes. A) Entities covered
More informationThe Privacy Implications of Historical Cell Site Location Data
The Privacy Implications of Historical Cell Site Location Data INTRODUCTION Across the country, Americans use their cell phones for several purposes: making phone calls, sending text messages and emails,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:10-cr-20535-DML-MAR Doc # 335 Filed 05/31/13 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 6782 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, BOBBY W. FERGUSON,
More informationAn appeal from the Circuit Court for Lafayette County. Harlow H. Land, Jr., Judge.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA QUENTIN SULLIVAN, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D06-4634
More informationPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 13-4037
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4037 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. REGGIE ANDRE BECKTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KEVIN D. TALLEY, Defendant-Below No. 172, 2003 Appellant, v. Cr. ID No. 0108005719 STATE OF DELAWARE, Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware,
More information-AGAINST- DECISION AND ORDER Docket No: 2011NY080152 MALCOLM HARRIS
CRIMINAL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: JURY 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------X THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK -AGAINST- DECISION AND ORDER
More informationCase 1:14-mj-00228-JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:14-mj-00228-JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) IN THE MATTER OF THE ) SEARCH OF INFORMATION ) ASSOCIATED WITH ) Magistrate Case
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc RYAN JOHN CHRONIS, ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. CV-08-0394-SA Petitioner, ) ) Maricopa County v. ) Superior Court ) No. CR2008-006808-001 DT HON. ROLAND J. STEINLE, JUDGE
More informationMICHIGAN FAMILY LAW ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CASE LAW UPDATE INTRODUCTION ARBITRATION
MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CASE LAW UPDATE by Lee Hornberger Arbitration and Mediation Office of Lee Hornberger INTRODUCTION This article reviews some Michigan Supreme Court and Court
More informationOffering Defense Witnesses to New York Grand Juries. Your client has just been held for the action of the Grand Jury. Although you
Offering Defense Witnesses to New York Grand Juries By: Mark M. Baker 1 Your client has just been held for the action of the Grand Jury. Although you have a valid defense, you do not want your client to
More informationCase 1:10-mc-00550-JO Document 5 Filed 08/27/10 Page 1 of 30
Case 1:10-mc-00550-JO Document 5 Filed 08/27/10 Page 1 of 30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------X IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION
More informationPUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 10-4068 CURTIS CORDERY,
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit August 30, 2011 PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationJune Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
JUNE 16, 2015 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE June Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. An
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. v. CASE NO. 8:15-CR-244-T-23AEP PLEA AGREEMENT
Case 8:15-cr-00244-SDM-AEP Document 3 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 15 PageID 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CASE NO. 8:15-CR-244-T-23AEP
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 15-12302 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cr-14008-JEM-1
Case: 15-12302 Date Filed: 02/10/2016 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-12302 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cr-14008-JEM-1
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 40673 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 40673 STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ALBERT RAY MOORE, Defendant-Appellant. 2014 Opinion No. 8 Filed: February 5, 2014 Stephen W. Kenyon,
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0675n.06. No. 14-6537 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0675n.06 No. 14-6537 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TERELL BUFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
More informationApril 5, 2012. Law/ Analysis
ALAN WILSON A TIORNEY GENERAL Brian Buck, Chief of Police Irmo Police Department P.O. Box406 Irmo, SC 29063 Dear Chief Buck: We received your letter requesting that we address the recent decision of the
More informationThis presentation focuses on how to write Case Briefs of Legal Opinions.
Criminal Law Statues (written by Legislature) Offense Reports (written by Police) Briefs, Motions, etc. (written by Lawyers) Opinions (written by Judges) Case Briefs (Students, Lawyers) This presentation
More informationElectronic Communications Privacy Protection Act. SECTION 1. {Title} This Act may be cited as the Electronic Communications Privacy Protection Act.
Summary: The proliferation of electronic communications presents new challenges for state laws protecting personal information from unauthorized search. This model act aims to provide some clarity for
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:09-cr-00188-MEF-WC Document 64 Filed 03/15/10 Page 1 of 9 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) CR CASE
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, VI ANN SPENCER, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 13-0804
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. VI ANN SPENCER, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 13-0804 Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County No. V1300CR201280372 The Honorable
More informationHow To Stop A Drunk Driver
Prado Navarette Et Al. v. California, 572 U.S. (April 22, 2014) An Analysis Brandon Hughes Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Alabama Office of Prosecution Services alabamaduiprosecution.com A question
More informationStanding To Challenge Corporate Searches?
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Standing To Challenge Corporate Searches?
More informationFederal Criminal Court
No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Amendment V. Defendant may not be compelled
More informationCase 1:10-cr-00509-REB Document 111 Filed 05/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:10-cr-00509-REB Document 111 Filed 05/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11 Criminal Case No. 10-cr-00509-01-REB UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff, 2. RAMONA CAMELIA FRICOSU, aka Ramona Smith, Defendant.
More informationFuture Proof Your ediscovery Practices
FEBRUARY 3 5, 2015 / THE HILTON NEW YORK Future Proof Your ediscovery Practices Plenary Session February 4, 2015 Barak Cohen, Partner, Perkins Coie Bruce Hartley, Vice President, Celerity Consulting Jessica
More informationUNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-4113
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-4113 RICHARD HUGH WHITTLE, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District
More information2015 IL App (1st) 133050-U. No. 1-13-3050 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st) 133050-U FIFTH DIVISION September 30, 2015 No. 1-13-3050 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited
More informationCase 1:07-cv-00039-PGC Document 12 Filed 07/20/07 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 1:07-cv-00039-PGC Document 12 Filed 07/20/07 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION JOE R. ALVARADO, Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State v. Mobarak, 2015-Ohio-3007.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 14AP-517 (C.P.C. No. 12CR-5582) v. : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Soleiman
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc DENNIS WAYNE CANION, ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. CV-04-0243-PR Petitioner, ) ) Court of Appeals v. ) Division One ) No. 1 CA-SA 04-0036 THE HONORABLE DAVID R. COLE, )
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANDRES LOPEZ-CRUZ, Defendant-Appellee. No. 11-50551 D.C. No. 3:11-cr-01507-JLS-1 OPINION
More informationHow To Decide A Dui 2Nd Offense In Kentucky
RENDERED: JULY 8, 2011; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2009-CA-000873-DG COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLANT ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM CHRISTIAN CIRCUIT
More informationCase: 5:10-cv-01912-DAP Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/14/11 1 of 8. PageID #: 358 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 5:10-cv-01912-DAP Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/14/11 1 of 8. PageID #: 358 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION UNIQUE PRODUCT SOLUTIONS, LTD., ) Case No. 5:10-CV-1912 )
More informationIN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS. No. 10-13-00109-CR. From the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 11-05822-CRF-85 O P I N I O N
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-13-00109-CR MICHAEL ANTHONY MCGRUDER, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant Appellee From the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 11-05822-CRF-85 O
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA STATE OF ARIZONA EX REL. WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE HARRIETT CHAVEZ, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE
More informationSTATE OF MAINE WADE R. HOOVER. [ 1] Wade R. Hoover appeals from an order of the trial court (Murphy, J.)
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2015 ME 109 Docket: Ken-14-362 Argued: June 16, 2015 Decided: August 11, 2015 Reporter of Decisions Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and
More informationFILED December 8, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL
NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 130903-U NO. 4-13-0903
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 2/2/16 P. v. Moore CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationChapter 13 Procedure (Last Updated: May 13, 2013) Chapter 13.A Speedy Trial Chapter 13.B Recorded Interrogations
Chapter 13 Procedure (Last Updated: May 13, 2013) Chapter 13.A Speedy Trial Chapter 13.B Recorded Interrogations Chapter 13.A Procedure Speedy Trial (Last Updated: May 13, 2013) 29-1207. Trial within six
More informationDepartment, Board, Or Commission Author Bill Number
BILL ANALYSIS Department, Board, Or Commission Author Bill Number Franchise Tax Board Leno SB 467 SUBJECT Privacy/Electronic Communication/Warrants SUMMARY The bill would require the department to obtain
More information