32 Cited authorities

  1. Riley v. California

    573 U.S. 373 (2014)   Cited 2,860 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the call records and text messages contained on a cell phone owned by his employer because he "had a right to exclude others from using the phone" and explaining that "a property interest in the item searched is only one factor in the analysis, and lack thereof is not dispositive"
  2. Davis v. Alaska

    415 U.S. 308 (1974)   Cited 5,798 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that this confrontation right is applicable to state and federal defendants alike
  3. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie

    480 U.S. 39 (1987)   Cited 2,736 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "criminal defendants have the right to the government’s assistance in compelling the attendance of favorable witnesses at trial and the right to put before a jury evidence that might influence the determination of guilt"
  4. United States v. Gonzales

    520 U.S. 1 (1997)   Cited 650 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "any other term of imprisonment" includes terms imposed by state courts
  5. Hilton v. S.C. Pub. Rys. Comm'n

    502 U.S. 197 (1991)   Cited 273 times
    Holding that Will is a rule of statutory construction, not of constitutional law, and that the reliance interests created by the Court's prior decision interpreting the Federal Employers' Liability Act to include state-owned railroads warranted adherence to stare decisis rather than to the clear statement rule
  6. U.S. v. Warshak

    631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010)   Cited 471 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that government violated Fourth Amendment when, without warrant, it compelled internet service provider to surrender contents of user emails
  7. In re J.H.

    158 Cal.App.4th 174 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 190 times
    Regarding the prejudicial effect of defective notices; due process violations in dependency proceedings have been held to the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard of prejudice
  8. People v. Hammon

    15 Cal.4th 1117 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 244 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Hammon, the California Supreme Court held that, in light of the strong policy of protecting a patient's treatment history, the Sixth Amendment rights of confrontation and cross-examination do not authorize pretrial disclosure of privileged psychiatric information.
  9. United States v. Pierce

    785 F.3d 832 (2d Cir. 2015)   Cited 110 times
    Holding that this "[C]ourt's supplemental [jury] instruction did not modify any essential element of the offense"
  10. Sierra Club v. San Joaquin Local Agency Form. Commn

    21 Cal.4th 489 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 108 times
    Acknowledging the existence of “ ‘narrow exceptions to the general rule’ ”
  11. Section Amendment IV - Search and Seizure

    U.S. Const. amend. IV   Cited 28,475 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures... [without] probable cause"
  12. Section 2510 - Definitions

    18 U.S.C. § 2510   Cited 4,353 times   81 Legal Analyses
    Defining "[i]nvestigative or law enforcement officer" as an officer "empowered by law to conduct investigations of or to make arrests for [certain] offenses . . . and any attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of such offenses"
  13. Section 2701 - Unlawful access to stored communications

    18 U.S.C. § 2701   Cited 1,374 times   135 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any person who "intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided ... and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage"
  14. Section 2703 - Required disclosure of customer communications or records

    18 U.S.C. § 2703   Cited 1,254 times   100 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that these providers "shall disclose" such information "when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute"
  15. Section 2516 - Authorization for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications

    18 U.S.C. § 2516   Cited 851 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Listing the executive officers who may authorize a wiretap application
  16. Section 2707 - Civil action

    18 U.S.C. § 2707   Cited 475 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Granting relief to those "aggrieved by any violation of this chapter in which the conduct constituting the violation is engaged in with a knowing or intentional state of mind"
  17. Section 2702 - Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records

    18 U.S.C. § 2702   Cited 362 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Restricting use of Internet subscriber information without consent
  18. Section 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

    18 U.S.C. § 793   Cited 194 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Referring to § 793 "for the purpose aforesaid"
  19. Section 1524 - [Effective Until 1/1/2025] Grounds for search warrant

    Cal. Pen. Code § 1524   Cited 137 times
    Noting that "[t]he property" listed in a search warrant "may be taken on the warrant from any place"
  20. Section 1546 - Definitions

    Cal. Pen. Code § 1546   Cited 138 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Defining " ‘adverse result’ " for CalECPA purposes
  21. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,445 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or