Ist 452 Quiz 2

Front 1

Guest v. Leis

Back 1

Holding: "when protected materials are commingled on a criminal suspect's computer with criminal evidence that is unprotected by the act, we will not find liability under the PPA for seizure of the PPA-protected materials."

Front 2

U.S. v. Gorshkov

Back 2

remote warrantless copying of data from Δ's computer deemed not to be "seizure"

Front 3

U.S. v. Lacy

Back 3

generic warrant description OK due to precision difficulties

Front 4

U.S. v. Campos

Back 4

disorganization & deceptive file names are concealment tactics
Requires search of all stored data to determine if included in warrant
Lab environment, time & specialists required for complete analysis

Front 5

U.S. v. Carey

Back 5

computer search for evidence of drugs locates pornography -- ruled to be beyond warrant’s; required second warrant

Front 6

Trulock v. Freeh

Back 6

co-user of computer lacked authority to consent to search of other user's Password-protected files
Court held that one user could consent only to "general search of the computer"

Front 7

U.S. v. Andrus

Back 7

HOLDING: consent can be valid when 3rd party has actual authority or merely apparent authority
Test is whether "reasonable officer" would believe third party has authority to consent to search

Front 8

Junger v. Daley

Back 8

Encryption is "protected speech" under First Amendment

Front 9

Karn v. U.S. Dep't of State

Back 9

Regulation of cryptographic products (on export-control lists) "content-neutral;" passes 1st Amendment "intermediate scrutiny" test

Front 10

Steve Jackson Games v. U.S. Secret Service

Back 10

Is seizure of computer with stored eMail not yet accessed/retrieved a prohibited intercept under the Wiretap Act?
Holding: No, stored electronic communications cannot be unlawfully "intercepted" when in electronic storage

Front 11

U.S. v. Hambrick

Back 11

ISP may trust a facially valid subpoena even if later invalidated; if no subpoena -- civil liability is remedy

Front 12

McVeigh v. Cohen

Back 12

Investigation of navy service-member revealed sexual orientation; basis for discharge
ISP records obtained fraudulently
Navy’s investigation unauthorized & likely illegal under ECPA
AOL violated ECPA
Congress subsequently amended ECPA to hold government liable for fraudulent acquisition of ISP records

Front 13

U.S. v. Forrester

Back 13

Government installed "mirror port" on defendant's Internet account, enabling surveillance of his email/Internet activity
Δ claimed surveillance was improper 4th Amendment "search"
Court rejected argument, holding that mirror port was like pen register in Smith v. Maryland; no legitimate expectation of privacy in e-mail addresses "voluntarily turned over" to third-parties (ISPs)

Front 14

U.S. v. Scarfo

Back 14

Investigation for gambling/loansharking
FBI surreptitiously installed key logging device on defendant's computer (pursuant to search warrants) to get password & access to files

Court finds no "interception" of a communication in transit, since key logger was configured by FBI so that it did not record keystrokes while defendant's modem was operating

Front 15

U.S. v. U.S. District Court

Back 15

Warrantless surveillance NOT allowed in context of "domestic" national security case

Front 16

Global Relief Foundation, Inc. v. O'Neil

Back 16

FISA also allows physical searches of premises, including searches without warrant/court order in certain situations (must get judicial approval within 72 hours)
Court upheld warrantless seizure, noting that subsequent application for warrant established probable cause that Δ's were "agents of a foreign power"

Front 17

United States v. Isa

Back 17

information properly obtained under FISA procedures may be used in a criminal prosecution

Front 18

Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Bush

Back 18

District Court ruled doc was protected but Π’s lawyers could testify from memory
HOLDING: Allowing testimony from memory would circumvent the document’s “absolute privilege”

Front 19

Hepting v. AT&T Corp.

Back 19

state secrets privilege N/A to fact that AT&T and the U.S. Government had “some kind of intelligence relationship”

Front 20

U.S. v. Hubbell

Back 20

5th Amendment protects a witness from being compelled to disclose the existence of incriminating documents that the Government is unable to describe with "reasonable particularity"

Front 21

Gonzales v. Google

Back 21

Google had to produce 50,000 random URLs, but Gov't. did not meet the necessary burden to force Google to disclose any search terms entered by its users

Front 22

California Bankers Association v. Shultz

Back 22

bankers had no constitutional rights in customers' data; customers could not show that their transactions would be reported

Front 23

U.S. v. Miller

Back 23

Defendant sought to suppress evidence (bank records) seized via subpoena
Denied by trial court, overturned on appeal
Holding: Fourth Amendment does not apply; defendant did not have "reasonable expectation of privacy" in bank records

Front 24

Doe v. Shakur

Back 24

threat of "public humiliation and embarrassment" insufficient in case where media knows name of plaintiff

Front 25

Doe v. Blue Cross

Back 25

fact that a case involves a medical issue is not a sufficient reason to allow use of a fictitious name, "even though many people are understandably secretive about their medical problems”

Front 26

Doe No. 2 v. Kolko

Back 26

Π who alleged sexual abuse allowed to sue with pseudonym
Court considered several factors
Main concern was not to impair Δ’s ability to defend or otherwise obtain a fair trial
HOLDING: Pseudonym OK in this case

Front 27

DOJ v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Back 27

request for law enforcement records about private citizen does invade citizen's privacy, and when not aimed at "official information," the invasion is "unwarranted"

Front 28

U.S. Dep’t. of State v. Washington Post Co.

Back 28

Court held that “similar files” included passport information

Front 29

National Archives and Records Administration v. Favish

Back 29

HOLDING:
FOIA recognizes family’s privacy rights in photos
Requester must establish reason for disclosure by showing significant public interest & information sought will advance that interest
Π did not produce evidence that would make a reasonable person believe there was “Government impropriety”

Front 30

Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Corp.

Back 30

HOLDING: law did not abridge free speech, but merely regulated access to Government data

Front 31

Florida Star v. B.J.F.

Back 31

Struck down law prohibiting the press from publishing a rape victim's name that appeared in public record
High hurdle to restrict "truthful information ... lawfully obtained"

Front 32

Kallstrom v. City of Columbus

Back 32

automatic disclosure of PII to public did not pass test; must give officers advance notice

Front 33

Kallstrom v. City of Columbus II

Back 33

District Court determined that police officers had no constitutional interest in preventing disclosure of certain PII where they had not shown risk of bodily harm

Front 34

Paul v. Davis

Back 34

no constitutional violation of due process or privacy rights
Davis could sue in state court for defamation

Front 35

Wisconsin v. Constantineau

Back 35

Struck down state law authorizing posting of "excessive drinkers"

Front 36

Whalen v. Roe

Back 36

Decided after Paul v Davis, Supreme Court recognized interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters

Front 37

Cline v. Rogers

Back 37

There is no constitutional right to privacy in one's criminal record, since they involve public information

Front 38

Scheetz v. The Morning Call

Back 38

Π's did not have constitutionally protected privacy interest in information they divulged in a police report
Π's could not reasonably expect the information to remain secret

Front 39

Paul P. v. Verniero

Back 39

There is a privacy interest in one's home address, but interest is outweighed by the "compelling government interest" behind Megan's Law.

Front 40

Quinn v. Stone

Back 40

Computer-generated hunting roster maintained at an Army depot was a "record" as defined in the Privacy Act
File contained "an identifying particular (Π's name) and was maintained within a system of records"
The willful disclosure of the record caused an adverse effect

Front 41

Doe v. Chao

Back 41

ISSUE: must Π show some actual damages (losses) to qualify for the minimum statutory award of $1,000
HOLDING: yes; key phrase is "actual damages sustained..."

Front 42

Becker v. IRS

Back 42

Court ordered physical destruction of records; delete exempt info from copy of record so to make remainder available for public access

Front 43

MacArthur Foundation v. FBI

Back 43

Privacy Act does not prohibit keeping data on 1st Amendment activities that was relevant when collected

Front 44

2 types of subpoenas

Back 44

Administrative (not self-executing)
Grand jury