In re United States
830 F. Supp. 2d 114
E.D. Va.2011Background
- Petitioners object to magistrate rulings on a Twitter §2703(d) order in a criminal investigation.
- Magistrate Judge Buchanan issued a Twitter Order requiring Twitter to disclose non-content records to the government.
- Petitioners Appelbaum, Gonggrijp, and Jonsdottir challenge the Order and related sealing/unsealing rulings.
- Twitter Order sought broad account and usage records related to WikiLeaks figures; order was sealed initially and later partially unsealed.
- Petitioners moved to vacate the Twitter Order, unseal materials, and publicly docket related documents; the magistrate denied vacatur and limited unsealing, which Petitioners now object to.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge §2703 order | Appellants argue statutory standing to contest non-constitutional order | Government says no statutory pre-execution challenge for non-content orders | Petitioners have no statutory standing to challenge non-constitutional order |
| Validity under §2703(d) and sufficiency of evidence | Sufficiency of “specific and articulable facts” questioned | Government provided concrete grounds in the sealed application | Twitter Order satisfied §2703(d) standard; not overbroad; not unconstitutional under Fourth Amendment |
| Fourth Amendment implications | IP address data reveals location and privacy interests | Third‑party doctrine and voluntary disclosure to Twitter | No Fourth Amendment violation; IP addresses are voluntary disclosures to third parties; no reasonable expectation of privacy; order reasonable |
| Due Process and First Amendment issues regarding pre-execution review and sealing | Want pre-execution hearing and public access; chilling effects | Judicial review and grand jury protections suffice; sealing justified | No Due Process or First Amendment right to pre-execution hearing or broad docketing; sealing upheld under common law and First Amendment standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (U.S. 1979) (establishes third‑party doctrine for non-content information)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (U.S. 1976) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily conveyed to banks/third parties)
- Karo v. United States, 468 U.S. 705 (U.S. 1984) (beeper tracking revealed interior details; requires warrant in some contexts)
- United States v. Christie, 624 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2010) (IP addresses as subscriber information; third‑party disclosure)
- Media General Operations, Inc. v. Buchanan, 417 F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2005) (abuse of discretion review for sealing decisions in § 2703 context)
- Baltimore Sun Co. v. Goetz, 886 F.2d 60 (4th Cir. 1989) (history/government interest balancing in access to judicial records)
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978) (outweighing public interest in access standard for sealing/open records)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (procedural due process factors balancing interests)