Stanford Center for Internet and Society

Earlier this week, Chief Justice John Roberts, addressed students at the Brigham Young University. According to a press account of the event:

Emerging technologies can create new questions about old laws. For example, imaging technology exists that allows law enforcement officers to see through walls. "Is that an unlimited search and seizure?" Roberts asked.

Paul Ohm and I wrote an amicus brief in the 10th Circuit case of US v. Andrus, the opinion I wrote about in last week's Wired News column.

My Wired News column today is Hack My Son's Computer, Please, a discussion of the Fourth Amendment opinion in U.S. v. Andrus (pdf), issued in April by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In the federal government investigation of steroid use by Major League Baseball players, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth District reversed two orders requiring the return of property seized from two laboratories, Consolidated Drug Testing, Inc. and Quest Diagnostics, as well as an order to quash a grand jury subpoena. The government had obtained warrants authorizing seizure of test results and records for ten named Major League Baseball players, which resulted in the seizure of data intermingled with the results of other players. In addition, an entire computer directory of files was copied and searched. The Major League Baseball Player’s Association objected to the overbreadth of the search and obtained orders to return seized property unrelated to the ten specified players. After reviewing the three orders, a divided Court of Appeals held that the seizure of intermingled data was legal and did not constitute “wholesale seizure.” Moreover, the intermingled evidence need only be sealed and presented to a neutral magistrate for review upon proper objection by the aggrieved party. Thus, all three orders were reversed, although the cases of seized property were remanded for magistrate review of the evidence.

United States. v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, (9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2006).

An Ohio district court held that a party fails to state a federal privacy claim in personal information when the only risk identified is that of financial harm. Plaintiff Lambert’s personal information, including her driver’s license and social security numbers, were published on a county government’s website, resulting in identity theft and financial loss. The court held that Lambert’s alleged privacy interest in her personal information did not implicate “a fundamental right” or “a right implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” since she only identified a risk of financial harm rather than a risk to personal or bodily integrity. The court also dismissed state law privacy claims taken under supplementary jurisdiction.

Lambert v. Hartmann, No. 1:04CV837, 2006 WL 3833529 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 29, 2006)

Today, a three judge panel from the Ninth Circuit withdrew its opinion in United States v. Zeigler and issued a new opinion.

This month's Reason contains an excellent article entitled, "The Pinpoint Search: How super-accurate surveillance technology threatens our privacy." The author, Julian Sanchez, notes: "A new wave of advanced surveillance tools is capable of detecting not just drugs but weapons, explosives, and illicit computer files, potentially flying under the Fourth Amendment’s radar all the while."

Yesterday, Circuit Judge Diana Gribbon Motz issued an interesting opinion on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The petitioner challenged the government's search of password-protected files on his hard drive, claiming that he was "the only person who knew the password necessary to view files that he had created" and that his wife, who has limited knowledge of computers, lacked the authority to consent to a search of these files.