Court Grants Search Warrant to Entire Apple eMail Account for [REDACTED]@mac.com

15 August 2014 Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog Blog
Authors: Peter Vogel

A Judge ruled it was unreasonable to ask Apple “to execute a search warrant” which “could pose problems, as non-government employees, untrained in the details of criminal investigation, likely lack the requisite skills and expertise to determine whether a document is relevant to the investigation” according to a report in Computerworld.  On August 7, 2014 Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts (US District Court, District of Columbia) in the case of In the Matter of the Search of Information Associated with [REDACTED]@mac.com that is Stored at the Premises Controlled by Apple, Inc. reversed an earlier decision by a Magistrate Judge which “refused to allow a two-step procedure whereby law enforcement is provided all emails relating to a target account, and is then allowed to examine the emails at a separate location to identify evidence.”

Judge Robert’s ruled “that providing law enforcement with access to an entire email account in an investigation did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures of property” which was in line with the July 18, 2014 New York court ruling which ordered Google to produce all content for xxxxxx@gmail.com.

Of course the 1986 Stored Communications Act applies to civil and criminal cases, but in the Google and Apple cases in New York and the District of Columbia the criminal search warrants were issued under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Authors

Related Services