Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The 4th Amendment and ESI
Courts have long acknowledged that searches of computers and other mediums storing electronic information (ESI) often involve a degree of intrusiveness much greater in quantity and in kind from searches of other containers. So one would have expected that given that the computer has been around for several decades including the use of the ubiquitous cell phone as one's "always at the ready" personal computer, the particularity rules for search warrants targeting ESI would be clearly defined. Sorry, kemo sabe, not today. Accordingly, this article will review some recent case law that spotlights this ever developing area of the law.
The Fourth Amendment's Warrant clause provides that "… no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (Emphasis supplied.) U.S. Const. Amend. IV. When written, our founders' major concern was the so-called "general warrants" of the King used to harass and arrest anyone who dared question his authority. The founding generation "… reviled 'general warrants' and 'writs of assistance' of the colonial era, which allowed British officers to rummage through homes in an unrestrained search for evidence of criminal activity. Opposition to such searches was in fact one of the driving forces behind the revolution itself." Riley v California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2494 (2014) (Roberts, C.J.) See, e.g., Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84 (1987); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 467 (1971).
The presumption of regularity that accompanies the issuance of a search warrant is undermined by deficits in its particularity. "The uniformly applied rule is that a search conducted pursuant to a warrant that fails to conform to the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment is unconstitutional. Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (1965); United States v. Marti, 421 F.2d 1263, 1268-1269 (2nd Cir. 1970).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.