31 Cited authorities

United States v. Jones
565 U.S. 400 (2012) Cited 1,863 times 109 Legal Analyses
Holding that installation of a tracking device was "a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted"
United States v. Knotts
460 U.S. 276 (1983) Cited 670 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that continuous surveillance on public thoroughfares by visual observation and electronic "beeper" does not constitute seizure
United States v. Cotterman
709 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2013) Cited 154 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that forensic examination of computer is nonroutine border search requiring reasonable suspicion
State v. Earls
214 N.J. 564 (N.J. 2013) Cited 112 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that New Jersey's constitution requires police to obtain warrant before collecting cell phone location data and noting that carriers have data that “can locate cell-phone users within buildings, and even within individual floors and rooms within buildings”
Commonwealth v. Augustine
467 Mass. 230 (Mass. 2014) Cited 97 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that law enforcement access to historical CSLI for a two-week period is a search under state constitutional provision, although a warrant may not be needed for a period of shorter duration
United States v. Ganias
755 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2014) Cited 88 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that government failed to meet burden of showing that its agents relied in good faith on search warrant or binding appellate precedent when they copied defendant's computer hard drives and retained files beyond scope of warrant for more than three years
Int'l Fed'n of Prof'l & Tech. Eng'rs v. Superior Court
42 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. 2007) Cited 104 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding a "strong public interest in knowing how the government spends its money"
Comm. on Peace Off. Stand. v. Superior Court
42 Cal.4th 278 (Cal. 2007) Cited 99 times
Compiling cases concluding that police officers are public officials for purposes of defamation claims
Sierra Club v. Superior Court (County of Orange)
57 Cal.4th 157 (Cal. 2013) Cited 81 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Sierra Club, a CPRA statute specifically excluded" '[c]omputer software' from the definition of a public record" and defined" 'computer software'" as including "computer mapping systems."
Williams v. Superior Court
5 Cal.4th 337 (Cal. 1993) Cited 114 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Williams, a newspaper waited until after the completion of a criminal prosecution before requesting copies of criminal investigatory records concerning the conduct of sheriff's deputies during a drug raid.
Section 3
Cal. Const. art. I § 3 Cited 296 times 2 Legal Analyses
Creating constitutional right of access to public agency records and calling for strict construction of statutes limiting such access
Section 2413 - Statewide Vehicle Theft Investigation and Apprehension Coordinator
Cal. Veh. Code § 2413
(a) The Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol is designated as the Statewide Vehicle Theft Investigation and Apprehension Coordinator. The commissioner may establish vehicle theft prevention, investigation, and apprehension programs. The commissioner may assist local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies by coordinating multijurisdictional vehicle theft investigations and may establish programs to improve the ability of law enforcement to combat vehicle theft. (b) The Department of
Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply
Cal. R. 8.504 Cited 21 times
(a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA v. S.C. (CITY OF LOS ANGELES)

31 Cited authorities

Holding that installation of a tracking device was "a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted"

Holding that continuous surveillance on public thoroughfares by visual observation and electronic "beeper" does not constitute seizure

Holding that forensic examination of computer is nonroutine border search requiring reasonable suspicion

Holding that New Jersey's constitution requires police to obtain warrant before collecting cell phone location data and noting that carriers have data that “can locate cell-phone users within buildings, and even within individual floors and rooms within buildings”

Holding that law enforcement access to historical CSLI for a two-week period is a search under state constitutional provision, although a warrant may not be needed for a period of shorter duration

Holding that government failed to meet burden of showing that its agents relied in good faith on search warrant or binding appellate precedent when they copied defendant's computer hard drives and retained files beyond scope of warrant for more than three years

Finding a "strong public interest in knowing how the government spends its money"

Compiling cases concluding that police officers are public officials for purposes of defamation claims

In Sierra Club, a CPRA statute specifically excluded" '[c]omputer software' from the definition of a public record" and defined" 'computer software'" as including "computer mapping systems."

In Williams, a newspaper waited until after the completion of a criminal prosecution before requesting copies of criminal investigatory records concerning the conduct of sheriff's deputies during a drug raid.

Creating constitutional right of access to public agency records and calling for strict construction of statutes limiting such access