Jump to content

User:Dbarnhill/Roughdraft: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Dbarnhill (talk | contribs)
44 edits
Dbarnhill (talk | contribs)
44 edits
No edit summary
Line 11: Line 11:
| Prior=
| Prior=
| Subsequent=
| Subsequent=
| Holding=There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of emails held on third party servers.
| Holding=Government agents violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights when they compelled his ISP to produce the content of his emails without first obtaining a warrant based on probable cause.
| Judges=[[Damon_Keith|Damon Keith]], [[Danny_Julian_Boggs|Danny Boggs]], and [[David_McKeague|David McKeague]]
| Judges=[[Damon_Keith|Damon Keith]], [[Danny_Julian_Boggs|Danny Boggs]], and [[David_McKeague|David McKeague]]
| Majority=Boggs
| Majority=Boggs
Line 19: Line 19:
}}
}}


'''''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 defendant's [[Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution|Fourth Amendment]] rights by compelling his [[Internet_service_provider|Internet Service Provider]] (ISP) to turn over his [[E-mail|e-mails]] without first obtaining a warrant based on [[Probable_cause|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|reasonable expectation of privacy]] in the content of e-mails stored on third party servers and that the content of these emails is subject to Fourth Amendment protection.<ref name="usvwarshak">{{cite court |litigants=United States v. Warshak |vol=--- |reporter=F.3d |opinion=--- |court=6th Cir. |date=2010 |url=http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0377p-06.pdf}}</ref>
'''''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 defendant's [[Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution|Fourth Amendment]] rights by compelling his [[Internet_service_provider|Internet Service Provider]] (ISP) to turn over his [[E-mail|e-mails]] without first obtaining a warrant based on [[Probable_cause|probable cause]]. However, constitutional violation notwithstanding, the evidence obtained with these emails could not be excluded from the trial because the government agents relied in good faith on the [[Stored_Communications_Act|Stored Communications Act]] (SCA). The court further declared that the SCA is unconstitutional to the extent that it allows the government to obtain emails without a warrant.
<ref name="usvwarshak">
{{cite court |litigants=United States v. Warshak |vol=--- |reporter=F.3d |opinion=--- |court=6th Cir. |date=2010 |url=http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0377p-06.pdf}}
</ref>

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|reasonable expectation of privacy]] in the content of e-mails stored on third party servers and that the content of these emails is subject to Fourth Amendment protection.
<ref name="usvwarshak">
</ref>


== Background ==
== Background ==


=== Facts ===
=== Facts ===
Steven Warshak owned and operated Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals, Inc. (Berkeley) which sold, among other products, a herbal supplement marketed as a pill for natural male enhancement, called [[Enzyte]].<ref name="warshakbusiness>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6513891/ Warshak Business Background]</ref> His mother, Harriet Warshak, worked at Berkeley with him in the credit card department.<ref name="usvwarshak"></ref>
Steven Warshak owned and operated Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals, Inc. (Berkeley) which sold, among other products, a herbal supplement marketed as a pill for natural male enhancement, called [[Enzyte]].
<ref name="warshakbusiness>
[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6513891/ Warshak Business Background]
</ref>
His mother, Harriet Warshak, worked at Berkeley with him in the credit card department.
<ref name="usvwarshak">
</ref>


=== Procedural History ===
=== Procedural History ===
In September of 2006, a grand jury in Ohio returned an indictment with more than 100 counts charging Warshak and his mother with various crimes including conspiracy to commit mail, wire, and bank fraud, mail fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering.<ref name="indictment">[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215087,00.html?sPage=fnc.national/crime Warshak Indicted]</ref> Warshak moved before trial to exclude emails obtained from his ISP; this motion was denied.<ref name="usvwarshak"></ref>
In September of 2006, a grand jury in Ohio returned an indictment with more than 100 counts charging Warshak and his mother with various crimes including conspiracy to commit mail, wire, and bank fraud, mail fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering.
<ref name="indictment">
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215087,00.html?sPage=fnc.national/crime Warshak Indicted]
</ref>
Warshak moved before trial to exclude emails obtained from his ISP; which was denied.
<ref name="usvwarshak">
</ref>


In January of 2008, the case went to trial. Six weeks later Warshak and his mother were convicted of a majority of the charges. Shortly thereafter, a jury found that certain assets were sufficiently related to the crimes that Warshak was ordered to forfeit illegally obtained gains. <ref name="usvwarshak"></ref>
In January of 2008, the case went to trial. Six weeks later Warshak and his mother were convicted of a majority of the charges. Shortly thereafter, a jury found that certain assets were sufficiently related to the crimes that Warshak was ordered to forfeit illegally obtained gains.
<ref name="usvwarshak">
</ref>


In August of 2008, the defendants were sentenced. Warshak received a prison term of 25 years, ordered to pay a find of $93,000 and to forfeit the sums of $459,540,000 and $44,876,781.68 which represented the proceeds of the crimes. Harriet was sentenced to 24 months imprisonment and to be jointly and severally liable with Warshak for the forfeiture amounts.<ref name="sentencing">[http://www.justice.gov/usao/ohs/Press/08-29-08.pdf Department of Justice: Sentencing of Berkeley Executives]</ref><ref name="nytimessentencing">[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803E7DC1E3EF932A0575BC0A96E9C8B63&scp=4&sq=enzyte&st=cse NY Times: Warshak Gets 25 Year Sentence]</ref>
In August of 2008, the defendants were sentenced. Warshak received a prison term of 25 years, ordered to pay a find of $93,000 and to forfeit the sums of $459,540,000 and $44,876,781.68 which represented the proceeds of the crimes. Harriet was sentenced to 24 months imprisonment and to be jointly and severally liable with Warshak for the forfeiture amounts.
<ref name="sentencing">
[http://www.justice.gov/usao/ohs/Press/08-29-08.pdf Department of Justice: Sentencing of Berkeley Executives]
</ref>
<ref name="nytimessentencing">[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803E7DC1E3EF932A0575BC0A96E9C8B63&scp=4&sq=enzyte&st=cse NY Times: Warshak Gets 25 Year Sentence]
</ref>


The defendants appealed their convictions, sentences, and forfeiture judgments.<ref name="usvwarshak"></ref>
The defendants appealed their convictions, sentences, and forfeiture judgments.
<ref name="usvwarshak">
</ref>


== Opinion of the Court ==
== Opinion of the Court ==
Line 42: Line 70:


=== Other Issues ===
=== Other Issues ===
Additionally, the court sustained the convictions for conspiracy to commit mail, wire, and bank fraud, along with the convictions for mail fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering because the evidence was sufficient to support them. However, Warshak's sentence was vacated and remanded to the lower court because the court's previous ruling lacked an adequate explanation of losses to justify the sentence.<ref name="usvwarshak"></ref>
Additionally, the court sustained the convictions for conspiracy to commit mail, wire, and bank fraud, along with the convictions for mail fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering because the evidence was sufficient to support them. However, Warshak's sentence was vacated and remanded to the lower court because the court's previous ruling lacked an adequate explanation of losses to justify the sentence.
<ref name="usvwarshak">
</ref>


=== Result ===
=== 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:
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:
<ref name="usvwarshak">
</ref>
* AFFIRMED Warshak's convictions
* AFFIRMED Warshak's convictions
* AFFIRMED the forfeiture judgments against him, VACATED the 25 year sentence, and REMANDED for resentencing.
* AFFIRMED the forfeiture judgments against him, VACATED the 25 year sentence, and REMANDED for resentencing.
Line 54: Line 86:


=== Concurring Opinion ===
=== Concurring Opinion ===
The concurring opinion addressed the use of the SCA by the government to request that Warshak's ISP retain emails it would have otherwise deleted. Section 2703(f) of the SCA, according to Judge 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 of Section 2703(f) does not affect the outcome of the case, so Judge Keith concurred in the result.
The concurring opinion addressed the use of the SCA by the government to request that Warshak's ISP retain emails it would have otherwise deleted. Section 2703(f) of the SCA, according to Judge 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 of Section 2703(f) does not affect the outcome of the case, so Judge Keith concurred in the result.


== References ==
== References ==

Revision as of 07:07, 3 March 2011

United States v. Warshak
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Full case name'United States v. Steven Warshak et al.'
ArguedJune 16 2010
DecidedDecember 14 2010
Citation2010 WL 5071766; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25415; --- F.3d ---
Holding
Government agents violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights when they compelled his ISP to produce the content of his emails without first obtaining a warrant based on probable cause.
Court membership
Judges sittingDamon Keith, Danny Boggs, and David McKeague
Case opinions
MajorityBoggs, joined by McKeague
ConcurrenceKeith
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 defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by compelling his Internet Service Provider (ISP) to turn over his e-mails without first obtaining a warrant based on probable cause. However, constitutional violation notwithstanding, the evidence obtained with these emails could not be excluded from the trial because the government agents relied in good faith on the Stored Communications Act (SCA). The court further declared that the SCA is unconstitutional to the extent that it allows the government to obtain emails without a warrant. [1]

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 and that the content of these emails is subject to Fourth Amendment protection. [1]

Background

Facts

Steven Warshak owned and operated Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals, Inc. (Berkeley) which sold, among other products, a herbal supplement marketed as a pill for natural male enhancement, called Enzyte. [2] His mother, Harriet Warshak, worked at Berkeley with him in the credit card department. [1]

Procedural History

In September of 2006, a grand jury in Ohio returned an indictment with more than 100 counts charging Warshak and his mother with various crimes including conspiracy to commit mail, wire, and bank fraud, mail fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering. [3] Warshak moved before trial to exclude emails obtained from his ISP; which was denied. [1]

In January of 2008, the case went to trial. Six weeks later Warshak and his mother were convicted of a majority of the charges. Shortly thereafter, a jury found that certain assets were sufficiently related to the crimes that Warshak was ordered to forfeit illegally obtained gains. [1]

In August of 2008, the defendants were sentenced. Warshak received a prison term of 25 years, ordered to pay a find of $93,000 and to forfeit the sums of $459,540,000 and $44,876,781.68 which represented the proceeds of the crimes. Harriet was sentenced to 24 months imprisonment and to be jointly and severally liable with Warshak for the forfeiture amounts. [4] [5]

The defendants appealed their convictions, sentences, and forfeiture judgments. [1]

Opinion of the Court

Fourth Amendment

Stored Communications Act

Other Issues

Additionally, the court sustained the convictions for conspiracy to commit mail, wire, and bank fraud, along with the convictions for mail fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering because the evidence was sufficient to support them. However, Warshak's sentence was vacated and remanded to the lower court because the court's previous ruling lacked an adequate explanation of losses to justify the sentence. [1]

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: [1]

  • AFFIRMED Warshak's convictions
  • AFFIRMED the forfeiture judgments against him, VACATED the 25 year sentence, and REMANDED for resentencing.
  • AFFIRMED Harriet's convictions except those 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 addressed the use of the SCA by the government to request that Warshak's ISP retain emails it would have otherwise deleted. Section 2703(f) of the SCA, according to Judge 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 of Section 2703(f) does not affect the outcome of the case, so Judge Keith concurred in the result.

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i United States v. Warshak, --- F.3d --- (6th Cir. 2010).
  2. ^ Warshak Business Background
  3. ^ Warshak Indicted
  4. ^ Department of Justice: Sentencing of Berkeley Executives
  5. ^ NY Times: Warshak Gets 25 Year Sentence

External Links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dbarnhill/Roughdraft&oldid=416871263"