Tweet

@mollyxbrady

More from @OrinKerr

Orin Kerr

@OrinKerr

24 Sep

Provider-deleted files and contents are not protected by the Stored Comm's Act, DDC rules per MJ Faruqui. In effect, if a provider moderates contents, all private messages and e-mails deleted can be freely disclosed and are no longer private.

Thread.
context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/def… #N

First, some context. Back in 2018, Facebook deleted a bunch of accounts run by the Myanmar government because it was spreading disinformation on Facebook. Later, the Gambian government sued the Myanmar government in the International Court of Justice.

The Gambian govt is trying to get the contents of the accounts that Facebook deleted to show Myanmar's disinformation campaign. It is using a federal statute that allows discovery from the US to aid in foreign litigation to get it. (context: akingump.com/a/web/106630/a…)

Read 24 tweets

Orin Kerr

@OrinKerr

21 Sep

5th Circuit's en banc oral argument in US v. Morton, on digital search warrants, was this morning and is now up. (Listening now, will offer some thoughts below if I get a a chance.)

Defense counsel asks for 8 minutes of uninterrupted time. I don't know 5th Circuit practice, but this seems like a bad idea: He's just summarizing his argument. Yeesh, let's get to the questions. (At least you can listen at 1.5x speed.)

1st question at 8 min mark(!)

1st Q is about the good faith exception, and, if they're debating a novel 4A issue, doesn't that mean the good faith exception applies. (I can't ID the judge, unfortunately.)

Read 6 tweets

Orin Kerr

@OrinKerr

10 Sep

Important and (I think) surprising decision from Mass. SJC: Reviewing body-worn camera footage taken inside suspect's house is a separate 4th Amend search, and it's unlawful to review the footage later for a different reason w/o a warrant.

Thread.
mass.gov/files/document… #N

In the case, officers were asked to enter a home in response to a domestic disturbance by someone who lived there. An officer was wearing a body-worn camera that recorded what the officer saw. The SJC holds that isn't an additional search: The camera saw what the officer saw.

If I follow the facts correctly, the body-worn camera footage was then made available to other officers, including an officer who was already conducting a gang-related investigation into someone at the house. The footage showed the suspected gang member holding a gun.

Read 10 tweets

Orin Kerr

@OrinKerr

9 Sep

@BrianLeiter

This is a niche tweet for lawprofs, but a dynamic that seems to emerge from the Sisk data (via @BrianLeiter) is that citations in tech-related areas of law come from a broader range of schools in terms of US News ranking.

Thread for those interested.

In most of the subject areas, the most-cited tend to be at US News "top" schools.

When it comes to tech-related scholars, though, the most-cited are at a significantly wider range of schools. You can see perhaps most directly from the law and tech numbers:

@daniellecitron

(And note that #2, @daniellecitron, arrived at UVA only in 2021, after the 2016-20 window closed.).

An even better example is @ProfFerguson, who often writes in tech-related crim subjects, who recently arrived at Am U after several years at UDC and is #11 on the crim law list.

Read 5 tweets

Orin Kerr

@OrinKerr

8 Sep

SD Indiana: University tracking movements of students using their ID cards, assuming it's a search, is not "unreasonable" under a balancing approach to reasonableness. I find this op a bit puzzling, quick thread. ecf.insd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_p… #N

The court seems to think that reasonableness in 4A law always requires a balance, and does a balance here. But that's not how it works: Reasonableness might require a warrant, or just notice, or something else, depending on the circumstances. We need to know, why balancing?

Also, some of the reasonableness balancing seemed to reflect Carpenter-like reasoning that was more about what amounts to a search under Carpenter and the CA7's ruling in Hammond. Those boxes don't readily mix, I think.

Read 4 tweets

Orin Kerr

@OrinKerr

8 Sep

Missouri SCT: Where warrant for cell phone authorized search of suspect's house for his phone, agents could not seize phone when the suspect was at the station house; warrant to search phone doesn't allow later search through it. (Odd --thread below) courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=18… #N

This result seems odd to me. First some context. Computer searches tend to have two stages: the physical search stage when the device is found and seized, and then the electronic search stage when the device is searched. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

As I explained in the article linked to above, this creates some puzzles for how to draft computer warrants. Should the warrant's "place to be searched" describe the place where the physical search stage will occur, or the electronic search stage?

Read 11 tweets

Share this page!

Orin Kerr

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @OrinKerr

Orin Kerr

Orin Kerr

Orin Kerr

Orin Kerr

Orin Kerr

Orin Kerr

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Like this author's thread?