,
9 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Ariz Ct. of Appeals: Under the Ariz state constitution, there is no third-party doctrine: The state's police now must get a search warrant to obtain the IP address used by a pseudonymous account on a messaging service. cases.justia.com/arizona/court-… #N 
In the case, an undercover agent invited people in an online forum to join an online messaging group to distribute child porn. A person responding by asking to join the group, using the screenname "tabooin520." “tabooin520” then sent child porn to the group. /2
The govt then issued a subpoena to the messaging app provider for the IP address “tabooin520” was using. The IP address revealed tabooin520's internet provider, and a second subpoena, to the internet provider, revealed the house assigned that IP address.
An interesting wrinkle in the case is that it was a joint federal/state investigation, and the crime, distributing child porn, is both federal and state. If I'm not mistaken, I believe the case can now be brought in federal court and the result will be the opposite.
If I'm reading the facts correctly, the subpoenas were actually federal subpoenas obtained by federal agents as part of the joint investigation. Enough to trigger the state const to the state court, I assume (although skimming it, I don't see an analysis of that), but . . .
. . I assume that, under the Supremacy Clause, a federal court will not enforce state constitutional limits identified by state courts to federal agents.
It's also interesting to ponder, what if it was entirely state agents? Imagine the state SCT says that the state agents violated the state const. Can the feds file the case in fed court, and use the state investigation? That is, can/will a federal court enforce the state const?
I assume the answer is that a federal court will say that the state const suppression remedy is limited to state court, and that the state constitution can't limit what evidence federal courts suppress. But I wonder if that is instinct, or is there is federal caselaw on that.
I should prob know this, but I'm blanking: @WilliamBaude, any ideas?
