In re Warrant to Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled & Maintained by Microsoft Corp.
15 F. Supp. 3d 466
| S.D.N.Y. | 2014Background
- Microsoft operates web-based email (Hotmail/MSN/Outlook) and stores customer data in datacenters in the U.S. and abroad; accounts may be migrated (e.g., to Dublin) based on registration country and latency.
- When an account is migrated, content and most non-content data are removed from U.S. servers; certain non-content data (testing/quality warehouse, address-book clearing house, and basic account metadata) remain in the U.S.
- The government obtained an SCA warrant (18 U.S.C. § 2703(a)) directing Microsoft to produce the contents and account records of a specified web-based email account; Microsoft produced U.S.-stored non-content data but moved to quash as to content stored on a Dublin server.
- Microsoft argued U.S. courts lack authority to issue warrants for searches/seizures of property located abroad and that the SCA warrant therefore was extraterritorial and invalid as to Dublin-hosted content.
- The court framed the SCA warrant as a hybrid (probable-cause issuance like a warrant; executed like a subpoena via the provider) and analyzed statutory text, structure, legislative history, practical consequences, and extraterritoriality principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an SCA warrant may compel a U.S. provider to produce content stored on foreign servers | Warrant is extraterritorial; courts cannot issue warrants to search/seize property abroad, so production of Dublin-hosted content exceeds authority | SCA warrants are hybrid and compel production from a domestic provider regardless of physical server location; territorial limits of Rule 41 do not control | Denied quash: SCA warrant can require a U.S. provider to produce content in its control even if stored abroad |
| Whether § 2703(a)’s phrase “using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure” incorporates Rule 41’s territorial limits | Microsoft: Phrase imports all Rule 41 limits (including territorial reach) | Government/Court: Phrase is ambiguous; it governs procedural issuance but not necessarily substantive territorial limits | Ambiguity resolved by statutory structure, history, and purpose — does not bar compelled production of foreign-stored data from a U.S. provider |
| Whether presumption against extraterritoriality blocks application of SCA warrants to foreign-stored data | Microsoft: Presumption forbids extraterritorial application absent clear congressional intent | Government: Presumption concerns criminal statutes and sovereign overreach; here obligations fall on U.S. entity, no U.S. agents abroad, and nationality/control principles apply | Presumption inapplicable here; SCA warrant does not implicate the same concerns and may reach foreign-stored data in provider’s control |
| Whether practical/MLAT constraints or foreign law concerns require quashing | Microsoft: Enforcement abroad would raise sovereign, MLAT, and foreign-law complications | Government/Court: Practical burdens support interpreting SCA to require domestic providers to produce data in their control; MLAT route would be slow, sometimes unavailable; Congress anticipated these issues | Practical considerations support allowing SCA warrants to reach data controlled by U.S. providers even if stored overseas |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (statutory interpretation starts with text)
- Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432 (statutory-language analysis principles)
- Chickasaw Nation v. United States, 534 U.S. 84 (definition of ambiguity)
- Marc Rich & Co. v. United States, 707 F.2d 663 (control, not location, governs document production)
- United States v. Bach, 310 F.3d 1063 (distinguishing conventional warrants from ISP-produced data contexts)
- United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (limits on Fourth Amendment for foreign searches by U.S. agents — distinguished)
- Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421 (application of domestic law to citizens abroad; construction versus power)
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (presumption against extraterritoriality principles)