User:Dbarnhill/Roughdraft: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
=== Concurring Opinion === |
=== Concurring Opinion === |
||
The concurring opinion, authored by Justice Keith, addresses the use of the SCA to request that the ISP retain emails they would have otherwise deleted. Section 2703(f) of the SCA, according to Keith, should have no prospective effect. The government's request that the ISP preserve Warshak's stored and future email communications without notifying Warshak is analogous to tapping his phone line without a warrant. This type of action would not survive a challenge under the Fourth Amendment: "The government cannot use email collection as a means to monitor citizens without a warrant anymore than they can tap a telephone line to monitor citizens without a warrant."<ref name="usvwarshak"> However, this different interpretation does not affect the outcome of the case, so Judge Keith concurs in the result. |
The concurring opinion, authored by Justice Keith, addresses the use of the SCA to request that the ISP retain emails they would have otherwise deleted. Section 2703(f) of the SCA, according to Keith, should have no prospective effect. The government's request that the ISP preserve Warshak's stored and future email communications without notifying Warshak is analogous to tapping his phone line without a warrant. This type of action would not survive a challenge under the Fourth Amendment: "The government cannot use email collection as a means to monitor citizens without a warrant anymore than they can tap a telephone line to monitor citizens without a warrant."<ref name="usvwarshak"></ref> However, this different interpretation does not affect the outcome of the case, so Judge Keith concurs in the result. |
||
== See Also == |
== See Also == |
||
Revision as of 00:52, 3 March 2011
| United States v. Warshak | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit |
| Full case name | 'United States v. Steven Warshak et al.' |
| Argued | June 16 2010 |
| Decided | December 14 2010 |
| Citation | 2010 WL 5071766; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25415; --- F.3d --- |
| Holding | |
| There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of emails held on third party servers. | |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Damon Keith, Danny Boggs, and David McKeague |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Boggs, joined by McKeague |
| Concurrence | Keith |
| Laws applied | |
| Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Stored Communications Act 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. | |
United States v. Warshak is a criminal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holding that government agents violated the defendants' Fourth Amendment rights by compelling their Internet Service Provider (ISP) to turn over their e-mails without first obtaining a warrant based on probable cause. This case is notable because it is the first court from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals to explicitly hold that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of e-mails stored on third party servers.[1]
Background
Facts
Procedural History
Opinion of the Court
Fourth Amendment
Stored Communications Act
Result
The Sixth Circuit held that the government violated Steven Warshak's Fourth Amendment rights when it compelled his ISP to turn over the contents of his email without a warrant based on probable cause. However, the emails were not excluded from evidence because the government agents relied in good faith on the provisions of the SCA. As a result, the Sixth Circuit:
- AFFIRMED Warshak's convictions
- AFFIRMED the forfeiture judgments against him, VACATED the 25 year sentence, and REMANDED for resentencing.
- AFFIRMED TCI's convictions
- AFFIRMED Harriet's convictions except in the case of the charges related to money laundering, which were REVERSED
- VACATED and REMANDED Harriet's sentence
- AFFIRMED proceeds-money forfeiture judgment against Harriet
- REVERSED money-laundering forfeiture judgment against Harriet
Concurring Opinion
The concurring opinion, authored by Justice Keith, addresses the use of the SCA to request that the ISP retain emails they would have otherwise deleted. Section 2703(f) of the SCA, according to Keith, should have no prospective effect. The government's request that the ISP preserve Warshak's stored and future email communications without notifying Warshak is analogous to tapping his phone line without a warrant. This type of action would not survive a challenge under the Fourth Amendment: "The government cannot use email collection as a means to monitor citizens without a warrant anymore than they can tap a telephone line to monitor citizens without a warrant."[1] However, this different interpretation does not affect the outcome of the case, so Judge Keith concurs in the result.
See Also
Warshak v. United States, 490 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2007). Warshak v. United States, 532 F.3d 521 (6th Cir. 2008).
References
- ^ a b United States v. Warshak, --- F.3d --- (6th Cir. 2010).