Showing posts with label ECPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ECPA. Show all posts

First Circuit: Boudreau v. Lussier

Expert testimony is required to establish that time-stamped screenshots taken of employees computer are, for purposes of the statute, contemporaneous intercepts of electronic communications.

Impoundment and subsequent inventory search of arrestee's vehicle from employer's private lot were justified under the community caretaker exception; even if the motive was investigatory, subjective intent is irrelevant, and the towing was objectively justified.

Employer defts would be protected by qualified immunity for consenting to search of employees computer where their authority to do so was not plain.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-1049P-01A.pdf




Fourth Circuit: US v. Chavez

No Brady violation in nondisclosure of prosecution witness immigration records, as not prejudicial, and the favorable immigration treatment was sufficiently raised during trial to discredit the testimony.

No Napue violation, as gov't didn't know of the misstatement in advance, and it was corrected on cross.

Scattered prosecutorial misconduct incidental.

No error on not instructing on the lesser included crimes, as a murder was committed, and the defts didn't have to actually physically participate in the murder to be found guilty of it.

Admission of evidence on uncharged murder not dispositive, and arguendo, harmless error.

Claiming lack of foreknowledge not enough to justify severance as an antagonistic defense.

Statute requiring second chair counsel in capital cases requires prompt request for replacement by the deft; court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance and continuance.

Sufficient evidence.

Historical cell site information admitted under the good faith exception.

No Eighth Amendment violation in life sentence for crime committed at 18 without specific findings from jury.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/164499.P.pdf

Second Circuit: United States v. Gasperini

No plain error from claimed unconstitutional vagueness of statute (CFAA), as the conduct here was squarely within the core prohibition.

As the statute (SCA) does not provide for the exclusion of evidence as a remedy, no abuse of discretion in allowing evidence from extraterritorial searches.

Mere gov't request to foreign agency is not enough to bring the subsequent extraterritorial search under the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

Internet archive screenshots properly admitted as business records, given testimony by staffers that they were created in the course of business.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2ba81dc4-9c50-470e-9f2d-3feefa265ae5/1/doc/17-2479_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2ba81dc4-9c50-470e-9f2d-3feefa265ae5/1/hilite/

Second Circuit: Microsoft v. United States


Computers, Fourth Amendment, ECPA


When legislation referenced warrants, it used the term as a legal term of art, one that distinguishes them from subpoenas.  Extraterritorial application is therefore precluded.

As the statute focuses on the act of invasion of the user's privacy, data that would be accessed extraterritorially cannot be reached by warrants under the statute.


Concurrence in J -- Particularity of location is problematic in an electronic context, so the presumption against extraterritoriality doesn't afford a clear bar to conduct that the Act seems to proscribe.  Law needs to be rewritten.



Microsoft v. United States

Third Circuit: In Re: Nickleodeon Consumer Pr


Standing, ECPA, Preemption, Torts

Disclosure of online user data sufficiently particular & concrete for Article III standing.

One-party consent under the wiretap act & corresponding state statute has no implicit age restriction.

 PCs are not protected computing facilities under SCA
.
 State statute requires something beyond access to data - must establish use.

Search engine not covered by video privacy statute; that statute requires something more than an identifying number, since an observer must be able to associate a person with specific content.  This holding cannot be reduced to a single sentence.

As claim derives from the expectation of privacy on the website, state intrusion on privacy tort not preempted by federal data statute.  

Third party cookies on site don't present a cause of action under the tort, but standard tracking might, if duplicitous.



 In Re: Nickleodeon Consumer Pr