25 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.D.C.2014Background
- Government seeks a Rule 41/18 U.S.C. § 2703(a)-(c) warrant targeting a specific Apple e-mail address.
- Application language is argued to be overly broad and to request access to entire account data from December 2013 to present.
- Attachment A names place to be searched; Attachment B bifurcates “Information to be disclosed” and “Information to be seized.”
- Court deems the drafting ambiguous, conflating disclosure with seizure and risking a general, exploratory rummaging of the account.
- Court relies on prior decisions (Facebook Opinion) to emphasize minimization, segregation, and provider-conducted search, and ultimately denies the Application.
- Order: denial without prejudice, urging reform of search parameters and minimization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrant application is facially overbroad | Government seeks broad e-mail account data beyond probable cause. | Government cannot justify a general warrant; seeks entire account. | Denied; overly broad and not tailored to probable cause. |
| Whether the two-step Rule 41 process constitutes a general warrant | Two-step scheme permits seizure of broad data. | Process allows targeted seizure of relevant items. | Denied; two-step approach risks general rummaging; unconstitutional. |
| Who should perform the search to satisfy Fourth Amendment particularity | Government should obtain full data and search it. | Electronic service provider should perform targeted search. | Provider should perform search with narrow criteria. |
| What happens to irrelevant information | Irrelevant data can be returned or destroyed later. | Undisclosed fallback for destruction is inadequate. | Application denied for lack of a destruction/return protocol. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coolidge v. N.H., 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (general warrants and necessity of specificity in searches)
- Md. v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987) (particularity requirement for electronic searches)
- United States v. Leary, 846 F.2d 592 (10th Cir. 1988) (limits on describing items to be seized)
- Brower v. Cnty. of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (1989) (seizure concept and Fourth Amendment boundaries)
- Warshak v. United States, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010) (privacy in email and Fourth Amendment protection)
- Facebook, Inc. v. United States, No official reporter citation provided in text (2013) (minimization and search parameters for electronic data (Facebook Opinion))
- In re Applications for Search Warrants for Information Associated with Target Email Accounts/Skype Accounts, 2013 WL 4647554 (D. Kan. 2013) (cautions against boilerplate language in §2703(d) applications)
- United States v. Taylor, 764 F. Supp. 2d 230 (D. Me. 2011) (court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require pre-screening by provider)
- United States v. Bowen, 689 F. Supp. 2d 675 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (considerations on electronic data search restrictions)
- Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc. v. United States, 621 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2010) (search protocols and narrowing for electronic data)