Control, Privacy, & Technology

3) Search and Seizure, 2.0 

1. U.S. v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (Read the Case Syllabus Only): http://supreme.justia.com/us/460/276/case.html (Optional Skim Case)

Use of GPS / Phones

1. U.S. v. Garcia, 474 F3d 994 (7th Cir. 2007): http://openjurist.org/474/f3d/994/united-states-v-garcia
2. People v. Weaver, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 03762: [pdf] (read pp. 1-28 and fn 1 on p. 29 — n.b. page numbers are of the pdf, as each opinion has its own page numbers)
3. Delaware v. Holden [PDF] (read pp. 1-7, 9-17)
4. U.S. v. Pineda Moreno, 9th Cir. Opinion: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1497005.html AND Dissent from Denial of en banc:http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/08/12/08-30385.pdf
5. U.S. v. Jones (2012) (read all opinions): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf
6. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/third-circuit-agrees-eff-warrant-required-track-car-gps
7. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/again-federal-court-finds-cops-dont-need-a-warrant-for-cellphone-location-data/
8. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/bipartisanship-supreme-court/547124/
9. Carpenter v. US (2018),  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf (read/skim as you deem appropriate/interesting)
10. Maryland v. Andrews, http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2016/1496s15.pdf(skim)
11. Optional: Application for Historical Cell Site Data [PDF] (read pp. 1-4, 15 – 35, skim pp. 5-14 [Conclusions of Fact])
12. Optional:  Read Case Syllabus Only from U.S. v. Karo, 486 U.S. 705 (1984), http://supreme.justia.com/us/468/705/case.html

Perp walks

1. A brief history of perp walks: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2011/05/a_brief_history_of_perp_walks.html
2. Lauro v. Charles, 219 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2000): https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/219/219.F3d.202.99-7239.1999.html
3. Caldarola 343 F.3d 570 (2d Cir. 2003): http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1371024.html
4. Mugged by a Mug Shot Online

(4) Right Against Self Incrimination 

1. U.S. v. Cohen, 388 F2d 464 (9th Cir. 1967): http://openjurist.org/388/f2d/464/united-states-v-cohen
2. U.S. v. Boucher, 2007 WL 4246473 (D. Vt. Nov. 29 2007): read the Magistrate Order first, then the Appeal
3. Bronston v. U.S., 409 U.S. 352 (1973): http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=409&invol=352
4. Brogan v. U.S., 522 U.S. 398 (1998): (note that the Souter and Stevens opinions are extremely short)
   1. Scalia’s Opinion: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZO.html
   2. Souter’s Concurrence: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZC.html
   3. Ginsburg’s Concurrence: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZC1.html
   4. Stevens’s Dissent: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZD.html
5. FedSoc:   https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/scotus-asked-if-5th-amendment-bars-compelling-defendants-to-unlock-electronic-devices  (and no, They Didn’t Resolve It: https://newjerseyglobe.com/fr/new-jersey-supreme-court-wont-take-up-forced-password-disclosure-appeal/)
6. FROM HERE DOWN: You can skim more than read unless otherwise noted.
7. Andrew J. Ungberg,  Protecting Privacy Through a Responsible Decryption Policy: SKIM [PDF]  [This is now VERY long in the tooth — I want you to see how much things have changed.]
8. Techdirt:  Massachusetts Ignores 5th Amendment; Says Defendant Can Be Forced To Decrypt His Computer
9. Techdirt: Another Court Says Compelled Disclosure Doesn’t Violate 5th
10. EFF’s Know Your Rights: https://www.eff.org/issues/know-your-rights
11. Apple’s Fingerprint ID May Mean You Can’t ‘Take the Fifth’  http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/09/the-unexpected-result-of-fingerprint-authentication-that-you-cant-take-the-fifth/
12. Forcing Suspects to Reveal Phone Passwords Is Unconstitutional – http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/forcing-suspects-to-reveal-phone-passwords-is-unconstitutional-court-says/  (also skim the linked court opinion in SEC v. Huang)
13. Fifth Amendment Limits on Forced Decryption
14. Compelled Decryption and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination [READ MORE THAN SKIM]
15. Minnesota Court on the Fifth Amendment (skim linked TouchID post)
16. Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n of N.Y. Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (1964) (Sub-Optional – We were going to have you read this, but we decided it was way too boring.  Here’s the link in case you’re interested, but we won’t even call it “optional.”): http://openjurist.org/378/us/52/murphy-v-waterfront-commission-of-new-york-harbor

5) Laptops, Documents & TXT MSGS (oh mai!) 

1. U.S. v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000): http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-166.ZO.html
2. Thomas’s Concurrence: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-166.ZC.html
3. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 US 321 (1987):  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/480/321/case.html

Search by government employer (will be more on private employers next week)

1. Ontario v. Quon, US Supreme Court (read Kennedy, skim what you like)
2. Optional/Skim: Quon v. Arch Wireless, 529 F.3d. 892 (9th Cir. 2008)  Ninth Circuit: Opinion; Ikuta’s Dissent; Wardlaw’s Concurrence

Searches at the border

1. U.S. v. Arnold, 523 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2008): district court opinion; Ninth Circuit opinion
2. US v. Jae Shik Kim:  district court opinion
3. United States v. Cotterman: Ninth circuit en banc
4. Techdirt, Think Tank Says DHS Should Stop Border Laptop Searches (also skim full report here)
5. Kashmir Hill, The Price to Cross the Border
6. https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-eff-sue-over-warrantless-phone-and-laptop-searches-us-border
7. http://www.zdnet.com/article/warrantless-phone-laptop-searches-at-the-us-border-hit-record-levels/
8. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-customs-agents-are-searching-more-cellphones–including-those-belonging-to-americans/2018/01/05/0a236202-f247-11e7-b3bf-ab90a706e175_story.html
9. Alasaad (1st Cir) (skim) [summary here] [dct opinion here Alasaad}
10. BUT SEE: US v. Cano.  (And check the En Banc Dissental)

Cell phone searches

1. Ars, Police Seizure of Text Messages Violated 4th Amendment
2. People v. Diaz, California Supreme Court
3. State v. Smith, Ohio Supreme Court
4. United States v. Garvey, US Virgin Islands
5. United States v. Flores-Lopez, 7th Cir
6. Riley v. California Sup Ct.
7. Where Police Can & Can’t Snoop Through Your Phone