46 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"
Simmons v. United States
390 U.S. 377 (1968) Cited 6,456 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendant's testimony to establish standing for purposes of claiming a Fourth Amendment violation "should not be admissible against him at trial on the question of guilt or innocence"
United States v. Miller
425 U.S. 435 (1976) Cited 1,123 times 44 Legal Analyses
Holding that the government could obtain bank records through a subpoena
United States v. New York Telephone Co.
434 U.S. 159 (1977) Cited 893 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding Rule 41 broad enough to authorize installation and use of pen registers
U.S. v. Warshak
631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010) Cited 448 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that 18 U.S.C. § 982 forfeiture provision reached "proceeds obtained" from money generated through "legitimate" sales because they "resulted ‘directly or indirectly’ " from the criminal offense
United States v. Forrester
495 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 207 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that government surveillance of a computer to discover email address information, IP addresses, and amount of data transmitted by email does not constitute a Fourth Amendment search
In re Electronic Communication Serv. Disclose
620 F.3d 304 (3d Cir. 2010) Cited 136 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that cell phone users' location data is not content information under the Stored Communications Act
Crispin v. Christian Audigier, Inc.
717 F. Supp. 2d 965 (C.D. Cal. 2010) Cited 121 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that Facebook posts are stored "for purposes of backup protection" under SCA by analogizing to electronic bulletin boards specifically discussed in SCA's legislative history
U.S. v. Councilman
418 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2005) Cited 111 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that Subsection "refers to temporary storage, such as when a message sits in an email user’s mailbox after transmission but before the user has retrieved the message from the mail server"
Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co.
529 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 81 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a provider of e-mail services [is] undisputedly an [electronic communication service]"
Section 2510 - Definitions
18 U.S.C. § 2510 Cited 4,250 times 78 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"
Section 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited
18 U.S.C. § 2511 Cited 2,781 times 42 Legal Analyses
Imposing a penalty on persons who “intentionally intercept ... any wire, oral, or electronic communication”
Section 2701 - Unlawful access to stored communications
18 U.S.C. § 2701 Cited 1,324 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"
Section 2703 - Required disclosure of customer communications or records
18 U.S.C. § 2703 Cited 1,204 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"
Section 2702 - Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records
18 U.S.C. § 2702 Cited 344 times 24 Legal Analyses
Restricting use of Internet subscriber information without consent
Section 3122 - Application for an order for a pen register or a trap and trace device
18 U.S.C. § 3122 Cited 112 times
Allowing a state “investigative or law enforcement officer” to make application for a pen register order to a “court of competent jurisdiction of such State,” “[u]nless prohibited by state law”

USA v. Swartz

46 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 defendant's testimony to establish standing for purposes of claiming a Fourth Amendment violation "should not be admissible against him at trial on the question of guilt or innocence"

Holding that the government could obtain bank records through a subpoena

Holding Rule 41 broad enough to authorize installation and use of pen registers

Holding that 18 U.S.C. § 982 forfeiture provision reached "proceeds obtained" from money generated through "legitimate" sales because they "resulted ‘directly or indirectly’ " from the criminal offense

Holding that government surveillance of a computer to discover email address information, IP addresses, and amount of data transmitted by email does not constitute a Fourth Amendment search

Holding that cell phone users' location data is not content information under the Stored Communications Act

Holding that Facebook posts are stored "for purposes of backup protection" under SCA by analogizing to electronic bulletin boards specifically discussed in SCA's legislative history

Holding that Subsection "refers to temporary storage, such as when a message sits in an email user’s mailbox after transmission but before the user has retrieved the message from the mail server"

Holding that "a provider of e-mail services [is] undisputedly an [electronic communication service]"

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"

Imposing a penalty on persons who “intentionally intercept ... any wire, oral, or electronic communication”

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"

Recognizing that these providers "shall disclose" such information "when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute"

Restricting use of Internet subscriber information without consent

Allowing a state “investigative or law enforcement officer” to make application for a pen register order to a “court of competent jurisdiction of such State,” “[u]nless prohibited by state law”