Cases

OPINION AND ORDER M. David Weisman, United States Magistrate Judge The government has presented an application for a search and seizure warrant to seize various items presumed to be located at a particularly identified location (hereinafter “subject premises”). The warrant further requests the authority to seize various items (identified in Attachment B of the warrant application), including various fo

Dooley, J. ¶ 1. In this complaint for extraordinary relief, we are asked to determine whether a judicial officer has discretion to attach ex ante or prospective conditions to a search warrant. The State petitions this Court to strike ten such conditions pertaining to the search of a personal computer, seized by police as part of an identity theft investigation. The State contends that the conditions exceed the judicial officer’s a

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STEPHEN WM. SMITH, United States Magistrate Judge. The Government has applied for a Rule 41 search and seizure warrant targeting a computer allegedly used to violate federal bank fraud, identity theft, and computer security laws. Unknown persons are said to have committed these crimes using a particular email account via an unknown computer at an unknown location. The search w

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA __________________________________________ ) IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF ) ONE DIGITAL DEVICE CURRENTLY ) LOCATED AT 601 4TH STREET NW, ) No. 24-sw-91 (GMH) WASHINGTON, DC UNDER RULE 41 ) __________________________________________) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SO ORDERED.

139 Nev., Advance Opinion a3 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN THE MATTER OF SEARCH No. 84931-COA WARRANTS REGARDING SEIZURE OF DOCUMENTS, LAPTOP COMPUTERS, CELLULAR TELEPHONES, AND OTHER DIGITAL FRED STORAGE DEVICES FROM TH

139 Nev., Advance Opinion a3 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN THE MATTER OF SEARCH No. 84931-COA WARRANTS REGARDING SEIZURE OF DOCUMENTS, LAPTOP COMPUTERS, CELLULAR TELEPHONES, AND OTHER DIGITAL FRED STORAGE DEVICES FROM TH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE APPLICATION FOR ACCESS TO No. 19-mc-44 (BAH) CERTAIN SEALED WARRANT MATERIALS Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Associated Press, Cable News Network, Inc., The New York Times Company, POLITICO LLC, and WP Co., LLC, d/b/a the Washington Post (collectively

G. MICHAEL HARVEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The government filed an application for a search warrant in this matter that sought to search a premises in the District of Columbia and to seize, among other things, evidence on cellphones and computers found on the premises which reasonably could contain evidence of the offenses under investigation. In addition, the government sought authorization from the Court to "compel biometri

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH [REDACTED]@MAC.COM Magistrate Case. No. 14-228 (JMF) THAT IS STORED AT PREMISES CONTROLLED BY APPLE, INC. SECOND MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is a Renewed Application for a search and seizure warrant pursuant to

MEMORANDUM Catherine C. Blake, United States District Judge Plaintiffs Sprint Nextel Corporation and Sprint Communications Company, LP (collectively, “Sprint”) have filed this action alleging that the defendants, various entities and individuals in the business of reselling mobile devices, unlawfully obtained and dealt Sprint devices without Sprint’s authorization and to its detriment. Sprint has filed, a m

Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court. These two cases raise a common question: whether the police may, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested. I A In the first case, p

747 F.Supp.2d 827 (2010) In re Application of the UNITED STATES of America FOR HISTORICAL CELL SITE DATA. Nos. H-10-998M, H-10-990M, H-10-981M. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. October 29, 2010. *828 Eric Darnell Smith, James L. Turner, Office of the US Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff.

Burgess, J. ¶ 1. The State appeals from the Chittenden Criminal Division’s denial of its motion to seal search warrants and related materials generated during an ongoing investigation into a missing Essex couple. The court determined that the State failed to show with specificity, as required under In re Sealed Documents, that disclosure would cause “substantial harm to public or private interests.” 172 Vt. 152, 153, 772

Beckwith, Associate Judge: *312 Phone Recovery Services (PRS) appeals the dismissal of a lawsuit it brought on behalf of the District of Columbia against various telecommunications providers alleged to have fraudulently underpaid taxes that the District requires such providers to charge thei

*75MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER , JOHN M. FACCIOLA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pending before the Court are six Applications for search and seizure warrants pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for various electronic devices that were seized in a hotel room in Solomons, Maryland. See Affidavit In Support of Search W

ORDER GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUESTS FOR CELL TOWER DUMPS PURSUANT TO SEARCH WARRANTS RIAN L. OWSLEY, United States Magistrate Judge. These five matters come before the Court pursuant to an application and an affidavit sworn to by a federal agent pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, each application seeks an Order directing that all historical cell s

*890 OPINION STEPHEN WM. SMITH, United States Magistrate Judge. Recent case law prompts this court to confront yet again an important question of electronic surveillance law: Under what statutory authority is law enforcement permitted to continuously monitor a cell phone’s location in (or near) real time? Background<

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Filed January 16, 2024 No. 23-5044 IN RE: THE SEARCH OF INFORMATION STORED AT PREMISES CONTROLLED BY TWITTER, INC. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:23-sc-00031) On Petition for Rehearing En Banc Before: SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge; HENDERSON*, MI

Case: 11-20884 Document: 00512325280 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/30/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 30, 2013