1 Case 1:14-mj 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 No THAT IS ) STORED AT PREMISES ) CONTROLLED BY APPLE, INC. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION The government challenges an order by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola denying its second application for a search warrant under 2703 of the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C The magistrate judge denied the government s application on the ground that the requested warrant amounted to an unconstitutional general warrant due, in large part, to the procedures set forth in the application for executing the requested warrant. Following the magistrate judge s denial of the search warrant application and the government s subsequent challenge to that decision, the Electronic Frontier Foundation moved for leave to file an amicus brief. Because the government s application complies with the Fourth Amendment and the specific procedures for executing the warrant are permissible under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 and controlling case law, the magistrate judge s order will be
2 Case 1:14-mj JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 2 of vacated, and the government s application for a search warrant will be granted. BACKGROUND On March 5, 2014, the government filed under 18 U.S.C of the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C a sealed application for a search warrant for electronic communications and other evidence stored on a computer. 1 The government s search warrant application related to a specific e- mail account, and involved alleged violations of 41 U.S.C (kickbacks) and 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy). The government s application included an affidavit in support of the search warrant providing factual information to support a finding of probable cause. 2 In addition, the government s application included two attachments that set forth the place to be searched and the particular items 1 Under the Stored Communications Act, an electronic communications provider is required to disclose contents, records, and other information of an electronic communication to a governmental entity, with or without notice to the subscriber, provided that the statutory requirements are met. 18 U.S.C. 2703(a), (b), (c)(1)(a). To require an electronic service provider to disclose either the contents of electronic communications, or records and other information, the governmental entity must obtain a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure... by a court of competent jurisdiction. Id. 2703(b)(1)(A), (c)(1)(a). 2 Due to the government s ongoing criminal investigation, very few details regarding the investigation will be addressed in this opinion.
3 Case 1:14-mj JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 3 of that the government intended to seize, including specific information that the electronic service provider, Apple, Inc., would be required to disclose. See Govt. s Application for a Search Warrant ( Govt. s Application ), Attach. A, Place to Be Searched at 1; Govt. s Application, Attach. B, Particular Things to Be Seized by the Government at 1. The magistrate judge denied the government s application for a search warrant in part because the application failed to clearly indicate that Apple was required to disclose s in particular, and because probable cause had not been established for all of the s requested in the search warrant. In Re: Search of Info. Associated with that is Stored at Premises Controlled by Apple, Inc., Mag. Case No (JMF), 2014 WL , at *2-3 (D.D.C. Mar. 7, 2014). In addition, the magistrate judge objected to the government s use of Rule 41(e) s two-step procedure 3 for gathering evidence whereby Apple would first be required to disclose to the government all s associated with the target account, and then, at 3 Federal Criminal Rule 41(e) sets forth the requirements for issuing a warrant, such as the information that must be contained in the warrant and the proper protocol for executing the warrant. Courts are permitted to issue warrants for the seizure of electronic storage media or the seizure or copying of electronically stored information. Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e)(2)(B). Included in that provision is authorization for subsequent off-site review of electronic information obtained in accordance with the search warrant. Id. The rule expressly authorizes a later review of the media or information consistent with the warrant[.] Id.
4 Case 1:14-mj JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 4 of a later point, the government would examine the s at separate location to identify evidence specified in Attachment B to the government s application. Id. at *5-6. The government filed a second application for a search warrant on March 28, In the revised application, the government indicated that the warrant applied to the account for and that the warrant covered information... dating from January 14, 2014, to the present, and stored at premises controlled by Apple Inc. Govt. s Application for a Search Warrant ( Govt. s 2d. Application ), Attach. A at 1. Attachment B set forth further details on the particular items to be seized, which included the following records: All s, including content, attachments, source and destination addresses, and time and date information, that constitute evidence and instrumentalities of violations of 41 U.S.C 8702 (Solicitation and Receipt of Kickbacks) and 18 U.S.C. 371 (Conspiracy), dated between January 14, 2014, to the present, including s referring or relating to a government investigation involving any or all of the following: [individuals and entities have been redacted]. Id., Attach. B at 1. Attachment C to the government s revised application included the specific procedures for executing the search warrant wherein the government would first conduct a search of the s produced by the Provider and determine which are within the scope of the information to be seized
5 Case 1:14-mj JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 5 of specified in Attachment B, and then copy and retain those e- mails that are within the scope of Attachment B. Id., Attach. C at 1. Law enforcement personnel would then seal any information from Apple that does not fall within the scope of Attachment B, and would be prohibited from further review [of] the information absent an order of the Court. Id. The magistrate judge rejected the government s revised application for a search warrant in a second memorandum opinion. In Re: Search of Info. Associated with that is Stored at Premises Controlled by Apple, Inc., Mag. Case No (JMF), 2014 WL (D.D.C. Apr. 7, 2014). Reiterating the rationale set forth in the first memorandum opinion, the magistrate judge again denied the government s application for a search warrant finding that it violated the Fourth Amendment because it amounted to an overly broad search warrant. Id. at *2-3, *5. In addition, the magistrate judge rejected the government s use of the two-step procedure under Rule 41(e), stating that the government was abusing the twostep procedure under Rule 41 by requiring Apple to disclose the entire contents of an account. Id. at *5 (quoting In Re: Search of Info., Mag. Case No (JMF), 2014 WL , at *5). To avoid issuing a general warrant that would permit the government to seize large amounts of data not supported by probable cause, the magistrate judge recommended that Apple
6 Case 1:14-mj JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 6 of perform the necessary search and turn over any relevant information to the government. Id. at *6. The government filed a challenge 4 to the magistrate judge s order on April 21, 2014, seeking review of the magistrate judge s decision denying the application for a search warrant. In its challenge, the government argues that the application for search warrant complies with the Fourth Amendment. Govt. s Resubmission or Appeal from Mag. J. s Order Denying Application for Search Warrant ( Govt. s Challenge ) at 5-7. In addition, the government argues that the two-step procedure for executing the search warrant is permitted under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41. Id. at On May 2, 2014, the Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF ) filed a motion for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in order to address pertinent questions involving the Fourth Amendment and new technologies. Mot. for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae of Elec. Frontier Found. at 1. 4 The government styles its challenge as an appeal, but the reference is a misnomer. With the exception of authority granted by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 58 concerning misdemeanor proceedings handled by a magistrate judge under 18 U.S.C. 3401, the district court does not exercise appellate power. See, e.g., United States v. Choi, 818 F. Supp. 2d 79, 85 (D.D.C. 2011) ( The magistrate judge is not an inferior court, and the district court does not stand in an appellate capacity over the magistrate. ).
7 Case 1:14-mj JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 7 of DISCUSSION I. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under the Stored Communications Act, the government may apply for a warrant requiring an electronic service provider to disclose the contents of electronic communications, or other records and information, from a court of competent jurisdiction. 18 U.S.C. 2703(a), (b)(1)(a), (c)(1)(a). The statute defines a court of competent jurisdiction as any district court of the United States (including a magistrate judge of such a court) or any United States court of appeals that... has jurisdiction over the offense being investigated. Id. 2711(3)(A)(i). Here, the basis for the magistrate judge s jurisdiction is the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C The Federal Magistrates Act provides magistrate judges with authority to decide certain pre-trial matters, including whether to grant search warrant applications. 5 Id. 636(b)(1)(A). A judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, provided that the matter does not fall within one of the 5 Under 636, pretrial matters include the issuing search warrants. H.R. Rep , at 8, 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6162, 6168; accord Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 868 n.16 (1989).
8 Case 1:14-mj JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 8 of enumerated exceptions set forth in the subsection (b)(1)(a). 6 Id. A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Id.; see also Gomez, 490 U.S. at 868. Accordingly, the magistrate judge s order denying the government s application for a search warrant under 18 U.S.C will be reviewed to determine whether it is clearly erroneous or contrary to the law. 7 II. FOURTH AMENDMENT The Fourth Amendment provides that no warrants 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. U.S. Const. amend. IV. As the text of the Fourth Amendment indicates, the 6 A motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action, are not included in this grant of authority to magistrate judges. 28 U.S.C. 636 (b)(1)(a). 7 A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing [body] on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948) (internal quotation marks omitted).
9 Case 1:14-mj JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 9 of ultimate measure of the constitutionality of a governmental search is reasonableness. Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 652 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where a search is undertaken by law enforcement officials to discover evidence of criminal wrongdoing... reasonableness generally requires the obtaining of a judicial warrant. Id. at 653. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment to require: (1) that the warrant be issued by a neutral magistrate; (2) that the neutral magistrate find that there is probable cause to believe that the evidence sought will aid in a particular apprehension or conviction for a particular offense; and (3) that the warrant describes with specificity the things to be seized, as well as the place to be searched. Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238, 255 (1979) (quoting Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 307 (1967); Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476, 485 (1965)). A judicial officer who is considering an application for a search warrant must decide whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. United States v. Warren, 42 F.3d 647, 652 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)). Under the Fourth Amendment
10 Case 1:14-mj JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 10 of a search warrant sufficiently describes the place to be searched if the officer with a search warrant can, with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place intended. United States v. Vaughn, 830 F.2d 1185, 1186 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (quoting Moore v. United States, 461 F.2d 1236, 1238 (D.C. Cir. 1972)). The manifest purpose of th[e] particularity requirement was to prevent general searches. Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84 (1987). General warrants le[ave] to the discretion of the executing officials the decision as to which persons should be arrested and which places should be searched.... [These warrants] provide no judicial check on the determination of the executing officials that the evidence available justified an intrusion into any particular home. Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 220 (1981). By limiting the authorization to search to the specific areas and things for which there is probable cause to search, the Supreme Court has explained, the [particularity] requirement ensures that the search will be carefully tailored to its justifications, and will not take on the character of the wide-ranging exploratory searches the Framers intended to prohibit. Garrison, 480 U.S. at 84. A. Application for search warrant The magistrate judge rejected the government s application as an unconstitutional general warrant not because the government failed to provide sufficient facts to support a
11 Case 1:14-mj JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 11 of finding of probable cause for the particular s sought, or because the government failed to specify with particularity the electronic records to be seized or the place to search for those records. Rather, in denying the government s application, the magistrate judge determined that the government was attempting to seize large quantities of s for which it ha[d] not established probable cause. In Re: Search of Info. Associated with 2014 WL , at *5. Moreover, the magistrate judge rejected the government s manner for executing the warrant described in Attachment C to the government s search warrant application. Under those procedures Apple would be required to disclose to the government all s and records related to the account. Govt. s 2d. Application, Attach. C at 1. Upon receiving the relevant e- mails and records, the government would then examine the information obtained to determine what s and other records are specified in the warrant as items to be seized. Id. The magistrate judge determined that because the two-step procedure is a narrow exception that requires an affirmative showing of need in the warrant application, the government s application was deficient because it fail[ed] to provide any explanation for why the two-step procedure is necessary. Id. at *5. However, the government s warrant and the procedures for the warrant s execution appear to comport with the Constitution.
12 Case 1:14-mj JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 12 of First, the government s search warrant properly restricts law enforcement discretion to determine the location to be searched and the items to be seized. The government identifies the precise location to be searched -- in this case, the account -- and specifies in the attachments to its application the particular s to be seized. In this way, law enforcement discretion is constrained and limited to the items to be seized that are specified in Attachment B to the warrant. See generally, Stanford, 379 U.S. at ( The requirement that warrants shall particularly describe the things to be seized makes general searches under them impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant. (quoting Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196 (1927)). Second, the information contained in the affidavit accompanying the search warrant supports a finding of probable cause because there is a fair probability that the electronic communications and records that the government seeks, which are described in detail in the attachments to the government s search warrant application, will be found in the particular place to be searched. Moreover, the affidavit includes additional background information on the particular types of
13 Case 1:14-mj JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 13 of records that must be disclosed, the specific crimes for which the government seeks evidence, and the targeted entities and individuals. When read together with the affidavit, 8 the government s application provides detailed information of the alleged criminal scheme and a thorough explanation for why evidence relevant to the investigation is likely to be found in records and other data related to the target account. Furthermore, the procedures the government adopts for executing the search warrant comply with the Fourth Amendment and are permissible under Rule 41. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are carefully tailored ground rules for fair and orderly procedures in administering criminal justice. Rule 41 embodies standards which conform with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Haywood, 464 F.2d 756, 760 (D.C. Cir. 1972). Rule 41 expressly contemplates and authorizes the procedures the government adopts here to execute the search warrant: 8 The warrant application must be read in conjunction with the affidavit because the warrant application expressly incorporates the affidavit. See, e.g., Vaughn, 830 F.2d at 1186 ( [T]he warrant may properly be construed with reference to an affidavit for purposes of sustaining the particularity of the premises to be searched, provided (1) the affidavit accompanies the warrant, and in addition (2) the warrant uses suitable words of reference which incorporate the affidavit by reference. (quoting Moore, 461 F.2d at 1238)).
14 Case 1:14-mj JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 14 of Computers and other electronic storage media commonly contain such large amounts of information that it is often impractical for law enforcement to review all of the information during execution of the warrant at the search location. This rule acknowledges the need for a two-step process: officers may seize or copy the entire storage medium and review it later to determine what electronically stored information falls within the scope of the warrant. Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e)(2) advisory committee s note. Several courts have found the two-step procedure to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, provided that there is a valid warrant supported by probable cause. 9 See, e.g., United States v. Schesso, 730 F.3d 1040, 1046 (9th Cir. 2013) (upholding government s seizure of electronic data for a subsequent offsite search where there was a fair probability that evidence would be found on the defendant s personal computer and other electronic devices); United States v. Evers, 669 F.3d 645, 652 (6th Cir. 2012) (6th Cir. 2012) ( The federal courts are in 9 The D.C. Circuit has not directly addressed the propriety of the procedures for executing search warrants for electronic evidence outlined in Rule 41(e). In its challenge, the government argues that the D.C. Circuit case of United States v. Heldt, 668 F.2d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 1981), does not reject the twostep process for execution of warrants for electronic evidence. Govt. s Challenge at n.5. Although it is true that the Heldt case does not expressly reject the two-step process under Rule 41, the case is not applicable to the issues presented here -- namely, whether the government may remove all files and records from a location to perform a subsequent search off-site to identify which s are items specified under the search warrant. The Heldt case involved an on-site search performed by law enforcement where certain documents were seized under the plain view exception. That was not a case where, as here, an entire set of files was seized for a subsequent off-site search to identify which items fall within the scope of warrant.
15 Case 1:14-mj JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 15 of agreement that a warrant authorizing the seizure of a defendant s home computer equipment and digital media for a subsequent off-site electronic search is not unreasonable or overbroad, as long as the probable-cause showing in the warrant application and affidavit demonstrate a sufficient chance of finding some needles in the computer haystack. (quoting United States v. Upham, 168 F.3d 532, 535 (1st Cir. 1999))). In addition, because the government s proposed procedures comply with the Fourth Amendment and are authorized by Rule 41, there is no need for Apple to search through s and electronic records related to the target account and determine which s are responsive to the search warrant. Enlisting a service provider to execute the search warrant could also present nettlesome problems. As the government argues persuasively in its challenge, it would be unworkable and impractical to order Apple to cull the s and related records in order to find evidence that is relevant to the government s investigation. Govt. s Challenge at To begin with, non-governmental employees untrained in the details of the criminal investigation likely lack the requisite skills and expertise to determine whether a document is relevant to the criminal investigation. Moreover, requiring the government to train the electronic service provider s employees on the process for identifying information that is responsive to the search
16 Case 1:14-mj JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 16 of warrant may prove time-consuming, increase the costs of the investigation, and expose the government to potential security breaches. As the government argues in its challenge, law enforcement officers are provided with considerable discretion in determining how to execute a particular search warrant. Govt. s Challenge at 7. The Supreme Court has explained that a search warrant s execution is generally left to the discretion of the executing officers to determine the details of how best to proceed with the performance of a search authorized by warrant[.] Dalia, 441 U.S. at 257. That said, although law enforcement officers are afforded wide discretion in executing search warrants, the manner in which a warrant is executed is subject to later judicial review as to its reasonableness. Id. at 258; see also Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, (1978). Accordingly, the government will be afforded deference in deciding how to execute the search warrant, subject to later review by a court to determine whether the search complied with the Fourth Amendment s reasonableness requirement. Finally, it should be noted that it is certainly true that searches for electronic data may present increased risks to the individual s right to privacy as technological advances enable law enforcement to monitor and collect large volumes of electronic communications and other data. See, e.g., Schesso,
17 Case 1:14-mj JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 17 of F.3d at 1042 ( Because electronic devices could contain vast quantities of intermingled information, raising the risks inherent in over-seizing data... law enforcement and judicial officers must be especially cognizant of privacy risks when drafting and executing search warrants for electronic evidence. (citations omitted)). Discussing the serious risk to privacy in searches involving an individual s personal files, the Supreme Court stated as follows: We recognize that there are grave dangers inherent in executing a warrant authorizing a search and seizure of a person s papers that are not necessarily present in executing a warrant to search for physical objects whose relevance is more easily ascertainable. In searches for papers, it is certain that some innocuous documents will be examined, at least cursorily, in order to determine whether they are, in fact, among those papers authorized to be seized.... In [these] kinds of searches, responsible officials, including judicial officials, must take care to assure that they are conducted in a manner that minimizes unwarranted intrusions upon privacy. Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 482 n.11 (1976). At the same time, searches for electronic data present unique challenges for law enforcement officials tasked with prosecuting crimes and gathering evidence relevant to criminal investigations. Indeed, the practical realities of searches for electronic records may require the government to examine information outside the scope of the search warrant to determine whether specific information is relevant to the criminal investigation and falls within the scope of the warrant. Given
18 Case 1:14-mj JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 18 of these competing interests, courts must strike the proper balance between ensuring that the government s ability to effectively and efficiently investigate and prosecute crimes is implemented and assuring respect for individuals Fourth Amendment rights. See, e.g., United States v. Ganias, No CR, 2014 WL , *6 (2d Cir. June 17, 2014) ( Because the degree of privacy secured to citizens by the Fourth Amendment has been impacted by the advance of technology, the challenge is to adapt traditional Fourth Amendment concepts to the Government s modern, more sophisticated investigative tools. ); United States v. Adjani, 452 F.3d 1140, 1152 (9th Cir. 2006) ( The fact of an increasingly technological world is not lost upon us as we consider the proper balance to strike between protecting an individual s right to privacy and ensuring that the government is able to prosecute suspected criminals effectively. ). With these considerations in mind, and for the reasons articulated above, the government s second application for a search warrant will be granted The government also asserts that destroying or returning the evidence received from Apple could either expose the government to accusations that it destroyed exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, or hinder the government s ability to lay a foundation for evidence and establish authenticity under Rule 901 and of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Govt. s Challenge at 22. The concerns presented by the government are valid and the procedures for executing the search warrant strike the
19 Case 1:14-mj JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 19 of III. EFF MOTION TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF Courts have wide discretion in deciding whether to grant a third party leave to file an amicus curiae brief. See Nat l Ass n of Home Builders v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng rs, 519 F. Supp. 2d 89, 93 (D.D.C. 2007). Court have permitted parties to file amicus briefs where the brief will assist the judges by presenting ideas, arguments, theories, insights, facts, or data that are not to be found in the parties briefs. Voices for Choices v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 339 F.3d 542, 545 (7th Cir. 2003). In addition, courts have granted amici permission to file briefs when a party is not represented competently or is not represented at all, when the amicus has an interest in some other case that may be affected by the decision in the present case, or in cases where the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to provide. Jin v. Ministry of State Sec y, 557 F. Supp. 2d 131, 137 (D.D.C. 2008) (quoting Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm n, 125 F.3d 1062, 1064 (7th Cir. 1997)). EFF seeks leave to file an amicus brief in this matter in light of the critical questions about the application of the Fourth Amendment to emerging technologies, and to address the appropriate balance between the government s interest in protecting the integrity of its investigation and the privacy interests at stake.
20 Case 1:14-mj JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 20 of underlying constitutional issues involved here. Mot. for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae of Elec. Frontier Found. at 1-2. Although EFF may be able to offer arguments, theories, [and] insights, Voices for Choices, 339 F.3d at 545, and other information addressing the Fourth Amendment s application to emerging technologies, such information is addressed in the magistrate judge s comprehensive discussion on the privacy interests at stake in searches for electronic information. See In Re: Search of Info. Associated with 2014 WL , at *3-5. Furthermore, given that the government s application for a search warrant complies with the Fourth Amendment, there is no apparent need to discuss, at least at this stage, the Fourth Amendment s application to various emerging technologies generally. The government s application meets the Fourth Amendment s requirements for issuing a search warrant for electronic evidence and the procedure for executing the warrant is supported by Rule 41. Accordingly, and in light of the wide discretion afforded to courts in determining whether to permit third parties to file amicus briefs, EFF s motion to file an amicus brief will be denied. CONCLUSION The government s application for a search warrant complies with the requirements under the Fourth Amendment and the
21 Case 1:14-mj JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 21 of procedures for executing the warrant are authorized by Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the magistrate judge s second memorandum opinion and order will be vacated and the government s application for a search warrant will be granted. In addition, EFF s motion to file an amicus brief will be denied. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion. SIGNED this 7th day of August, /s/ RICHARD W. ROBERTS Chief Judge
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
Case 1:04-cv-00446-MHW Document 19 Filed 02/03/06 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO LETHA RUPERT, Case No. CV 04-446-S-MHW Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
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)
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.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. JEREMY JOHNSON, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 2:11-CR-501 DN Chief District
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,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 12-4411 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DANIEL TIMOTHY MALONEY, Appellant On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATIONS Case Nos. 13-MJ-8163-JPO FOR SEARCH WARRANTS FOR 13-MJ-8164-DJW INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH 13-MJ-8165-DJW TARGET EMAIL
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.
2015 IL App (1st) 141310-U FIRST DIVISION October 5, 2015 No. 1-14-1310 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
2014 IL App (1st) 120762-U No. 1-12-0762 FIFTH DIVISION February 28, 2014 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
Case 106-cr-00271-PLF Document 24 Filed 03/14/2007 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GUSTAVO VILLANUEVO-SOTELO, Defendant. CRIMINAL
TIPS FOR HANDLING FEDERAL CRIMINAL APPEALS By Henry J. Bemporad Deputy Federal Public Defender Western District of Texas Like any field of law, criminal appellate practice is an inexact science. No one
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,
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, )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit June 10, 2016 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee,
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. NITEK ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendant-Appellee 2015-1166 Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade
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
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 11-988 CITY OF LAFAYETTE VERSUS SAM B. WOFFORD, III ********** APPEAL FROM THE LAFAYETTE CITY COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 2011-00814 HONORABLE DOUGLAS
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
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
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
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,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIRANDA L. MAHER : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : MOORE COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN : NO. 98-2978 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER BECHTLE, J. FEBRUARY,
A Federal Criminal Case Timeline The following timeline is a very broad overview of the progress of a federal felony case. Many variables can change the speed or course of the case, including settlement
SUBCHAPTER III. CRIMINAL PROCESS. Article 17. Criminal Process. 15A-301. Criminal process generally. (a) Formal Requirements. (1) A record of each criminal process issued in the trial division of the General
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION THOMAS J. KLUTHO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:06CV1212 CDP ) HOME LOAN CENTER, INC, ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case 1:06-cv-01892-CKK Document 30 Filed 05/20/08 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 06 1892 (CKK) REVONET,
BILL ANALYSIS Senate Research Center H.B. 2268 By: Frullo et al. (Carona) Criminal Justice 5/12/2013 Engrossed AUTHOR'S / SPONSOR'S STATEMENT OF INTENT Internet communications companies often hold information
Case 1:14-mj-02258-UA Document 1 Filed 10/31/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------X IN RE ORDER REQUIRING
NO. COA12-641 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 January 2013 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Forsyth County No. 10 CRS 057199 KELVIN DEON WILSON 1. Appeal and Error notice of appeal timeliness between
Case 1:98-cv-01232-CKK Document 854 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Civil Action
Case: 1:08-cr-00220-PAG Doc #: 24 Filed: 09/29/08 1 of 5. PageID #: 80 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE NO. 08 CR 220 Plaintiff, JUDGE
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed December 28, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00928-CV MILENE COOPER, D/B/A ACE BAIL BONDS, Appellant V. MARK HUNT, Appellee On Appeal
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
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0721n.06 No. 13-2126 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PATRICK RUGIERO, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; FANNIE MAE; MORTGAGE
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
Case 4:13-cv-01104 Document 40 Filed in TXSD on 02/26/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION SHARON JACKSON, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION H-13-1104
Case 1:12-cv-00547-CWD Document 38 Filed 12/30/13 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ALBERT MOORE, v. Petitioner, Case No. 1:12-cv-00547-CWD MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
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
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
Case 1:12-cv-01488-GK Document 43 Filed 06/24/13 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL -- ---------- ------AGENCY-,-INC-.-,--- Plaintiff, v. Civil
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,
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
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 13 2145 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. GREGORY WALKER, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed August 25, 2015. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-01515-CV TXU ENERGY RETAIL COMPANY L.L.C., Appellant V. FORT BEND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 06-3489 United States of America, Appellee, v. Keith A. Jones, Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 99,491 KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, v. JILL POWELL, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Under the Kansas Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement
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 150340-U NO. 4-15-0340
FEDERAL VICTIMS RIGHTS LAWS 1 CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT (CVRA): 18 U.S.C. 3771 (a) Rights of Crime Victims. A crime victim has the following rights: (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 4.06 BAIL BOND ACTIONS In order to provide guidelines concerning bond forfeitures in accordance with Chapter 903, Florida Statutes, IT IS
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS Volney Brand Brand Law PLLC Dallas, Texas Brad Johnson Seymour, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Gregory F. Zoeller Attorney General of Indiana Justin F. Roebel Deputy Attorney General
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANNY TEAGUE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 10-10276 D.C. No. 1:05-cr-00495- LJO-1 OPINION
THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234 OFFICE OF STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES 89 Washington Avenue, Room 318-M EB Phone: (518) 486-6090; Fax: (518) 474-8299
Case: 04-16887 Doc #: 122 Filed: 10/14/2008 Page 1 of 9 SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 14 day of October, 2008. ROBERT E. NUGENT UNITED STATES CHIEF BANKRUPTCY JUDGE OPINION DESIGNATED FOR ON - LINE PUBLICATION
2015 IL App (1st 142304-U SECOND DIVISION May 5, 2015 No. 1-14-2304 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
[Cite as State v. McCoy, 2013-Ohio-4647.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2013-04-033 : O P I N I O N - vs - 10/21/2013
Case 1:03-cr-00422-LEK Document 24 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PATRICK GILBERT, Petitioner, -against- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1:05-CV-0325 (LEK)
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JACOLVY NELLON * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2012-KA-1429 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 481-574, SECTION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. MARK TROXLER, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 28, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 55 Court of Appeals No. 11CA0892 Office of Administrative Courts No. 0S20110010 In re the complaint filed by the City of Colorado Springs, Colorado, Appellant, and concerning
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-5077 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUSTIN FOWLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District
Public Inspection of Criminal Case Files You ve Got to Keep Them Separate Katie Tefft Program Attorney TMCEC Public Information Act (PIA) Rule 12 Common-Law Right To Judge Judy, Please send me copies of
Case 5:14-cv-00141-XR Document 37 Filed 08/13/14 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION TAMMY FABIAN, v. Plaintiffs, CAROLYN COLVIN, Commissioner
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
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 29, 2014 Decided February
VOL. 34, NO. 4 SPRING 2009 Employee Relations L A W J O U R N A L Split Circuits Does Charging Party s Receipt of a Right-to-Sue Letter and Commencement of a Lawsuit Divest the EEOC of its Investigative
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 )
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 14-3137 United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Lacresia Joy White lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant Appeal
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAYEL PEREZ-VALENCIA, AKA Santos Irizarry Castillo, AKA Miguel Martinez, AKA Miguel
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DONALD GALLOWAY, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 91-0644 (JHG SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendants.
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 11-1385 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. ROBERT J. VENTI, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN FAULKNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC.; ADT SECURITY
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 37 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JACK and RENEE BEAM, Plaintiffs, No. 07 CV 1227 v.
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
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,
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 A13-2000 Tylor John Neuman, petitioner, Respondent,
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: November 19, 2012 S12F1507. RYMUZA v. RYMUZA. NAHMIAS, Justice. On January 13, 2012, the trial court entered a final judgment in the divorce action filed by appellee
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
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JASON WILLIAM CICHETTI Appellant No. 1465 MDA 2012 Appeal from
31.9 Double Jeopardy and Mistrials A. In General The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution precludes retrial of defendants in some instances where the proceedings are terminated
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.