<img src="//bat.bing.com/action/0?ti=5189112&amp;Ver=2" height="0" width="0" style="display:none; visibility: hidden;">

    Criminal Law Blog

    Gale Burns

    Recent Posts

    CRIMINAL LAW: Fourth Amendment: Government Access to Private E-Mails

    Posted by Gale Burns on Mon, Jun 13, 2011 @ 12:06 PM

    June 14, 2011

    Doug Plank, Senior Attorney, National Legal Research Group

    Most people undoubtedly assume that their personal e-mail correspondence is a private matter between them and the recipients of the correspondence and that when they send an e-mail to a particular person, that e-mail carries an expectation of privacy such that it will be protected from disclosure to the Government.  However, the scope of an individual's right to privacy with regard to his e-mail account is far from settled, as the U.S. Supreme Court has specifically declined to decide whether an individual's electronic messages are within the scope of Fourth Amendment protection, and the lower courts have taken different approaches in addressing the scope of e-mail privacy.

    In City of Ontario v. Quon, 130 S. Ct. 2619 (2010), a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Supreme Court reversed a Ninth Circuit decision that had held that a police officer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in personal text messages he had sent to a third party, using a pager that had been issued to him for work use, and, further, that the officer's employer could be liable for damages for its violation of that privacy right because it had obtained the text messages from the wireless communications provider without a search warrant.  Stating that "[t]he judiciary risks error by elaborating too fully on the Fourth Amendment implications of emerging technology before its role in society has become clear," id. at 2629, the Court declined to rule on the Fourth Amendment issue but instead concluded that even if the officer did have a right to privacy in the text messages, his employer had not violated the Fourth Amendment in reviewing those text messages to and from a Government‑owned pager, because its review was reasonable and motivated by a legitimate work‑related purpose.  [For a discussion of Quon in the Employment Law context, see John Buckley, Employment Law:  Workplace Computers and Other Deviceswww.nlrg.com/employment-law-legal-research (posted Jan. 21, 2011).]

    Subsequently, in Rehberg v. Paulk, 611 F.3d 828 (11th Cir. 2010), the Eleventh Circuit declined to resolve the issue of whether e-mails are protected by the Fourth Amendment, also choosing to decide the case on an alternative ground.  Rehberg was a civil rights action brought by a citizen whose e-mails had been obtained by law enforcement officers from the citizen's Internet service provider ("ISP") and examined without a warrant.  The Eleventh Circuit noted that at the time of the officers' conduct, no court decision had held a Government agent liable for Fourth Amendment violations related to e-mail content received by a third party and stored on a third party's server, and thus it held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity under the doctrine announced in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).

    More recently, the Sixth Circuit became the first court to squarely hold that a person's e-mails are private and protected by the Fourth Amendment, even after they have been sent to a recipient.  In United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010), the issue reached the court after the defendant had been charged and convicted of fraud in connection with the operation of several of his businesses.  In the course of the Government's investigation of the defendant, it had subpoenaed the defendant's ISP to obtain the content of e-mails sent and received by him.  These e-mails contained incriminating evidence of the defendant's criminal culpability and were used at trial to convict him.

    The court in Warshak found that the defendant clearly had an expectation that his e-mails would remain private and free from governmental scrutiny, and further determined that this expectation was one that society would consider to be reasonable.  The court stated:

    Read More

    Topics: legal research, 18 U.S.C. § 2703, e-mail, privacy, Fourth Amendment, City of Ontario v. Quon, reasonable expectation, United States v. Warshak, Doug Plank, criminal law, Stored Communications Act

    Convicted Defendants' Access to DNA Evidence

    Posted by Gale Burns on Wed, Mar 16, 2011 @ 12:03 PM

    March 7, 2011

    Read More

    Topics: legal research, criminal law, § 1983 claim, DNA testing, habeas corpus, Douglas C. Plank

    CRIMINAL LAW: Search and Seizure—Police Attachment of GPS Tracking Systems to Automobiles

    Posted by Gale Burns on Fri, Jan 14, 2011 @ 17:01 PM

     October 20, 2010

    Doug Plank, Senior Attorney, National Legal Research Group

    Two very recent decisions by the Court of Appeals of Virginia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia with regard to the use of Global Positioning System ("GPS") tracking devices as surveillance tools by police have once again focused attention on the important issues that are presented in such cases and have highlighted the split of authority with regard to these issues.  In Foltz v. Commonwealth, 698 S.E.2d 281 (Va. Ct. App. 2010), reh'g en banc granted, No. 0521‑09‑4, 2010 WL 3743911 (Va. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2010), the court held that the warrantless and surreptitious placement of a GPS tracking device by police officers on the bumper of the defendant's automobile was not an unconstitutional search or seizure and that the warrantless, week-long use of the device to track the movements of the automobile was itself not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.  The opposite result was reached in United States v. Maynard, Nos. 08‑3030, 08‑3034, 2010 WL 3063788 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 6, 2010), which placed greater emphasis on privacy concerns to find that the warrantless use of a GPS device was an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment.

    Read More

    Topics: legal research, Fourth Amendment, GPS, search and seizure, warrantless search, Doug Plank, criminal law, invasion of privacym, privacy interests

    CRIMINAL LAW: Standing to Contest Unconstitutionality of Federal Statute Used for Prosecution

    Posted by Gale Burns on Fri, Jan 7, 2011 @ 11:01 AM

    January 5, 2011

    Read More

    Topics: disparate treatment, Doug Plank, Criminal Law Update, state assault statutes, federal prosecution, Chemical Weapons Convention, Tenth Amendment, 18 U.S.C. § 229, interference with state sovereign immunity

    New Call-to-action
    Free Hour of Legal Research  for New Clients
    Seven ways outsourcing your legal research can empower your practice