The Investigator Network Podcast

Carpenter V. US (2018)

This Supreme Court case, Carpenter v. United States, centers on whether the government needs a warrant to access cell-site location information (CSLI) from wireless carriers. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion, holding that obtaining Carpenter's CSLI was a Fourth Amendment search, requiring a warrant, a view dissenting justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch opposed, as they each wrote dissenting opinions. Kennedy's dissent argues against the need for a warrant. Thomas's dissent criticizes the established legal framework. Alito's dissent discusses why the information should be obtainable by a subpoena. Gorsuch's dissent suggests the approach of a Fourth Amendment model based on positive legal rights. Click Here for the opinion.

Microsoft V. US (2018)

The case of United States v. Microsoft Corporation, which centered on whether a U.S. warrant could compel Microsoft to disclose emails stored on servers abroad. The initial warrant sought emails related to a drug trafficking investigation stored in Dublin, Ireland. Microsoft challenged the warrant, arguing it was an extraterritorial application of U.S. law, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Microsoft. However, the case became moot after Congress passed the CLOUD Act, which mandates that service providers comply with warrants regardless of data location. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the previous judgment and remanded the case, instructing lower courts to dismiss it, as the CLOUD Act resolved the central legal question. Ultimately, the enactment of the CLOUD Act caused the case to be dismissed because the US government obtained a new warrant under this new law. Click HERE for the case documents.

US v. Smith 5th Circuit Geofence ruling

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals case, United States v. Smith, concerning the constitutionality of geofence warrants under the Fourth Amendment. The court holds that geofence warrants, which compel Google to disclose location data of numerous individuals within a specified area, are unconstitutional general warrants. Despite this finding, the court affirms the district court's denial of the motion to suppress evidence obtained via the warrant, citing the good-faith exception because law enforcement acted reasonably given the novelty of this warrant type. The ruling acknowledges the tension between law enforcement's interest in utilizing advanced technology and the protection of individual privacy rights. A concurring opinion emphasizes the importance of constitutional safeguards against governmental overreach, even when technology offers benefits to law enforcement. The case provides an overview of the process by which law enforcement obtains geofence warrants and Google's response to those requests. Click here for the ruling

Caroll v. US (1925)

The Supreme Court case Carroll v. United States decided in 1925. The case addressed the constitutionality of warrantless searches of automobiles for contraband, specifically alcohol, in the context of the National Prohibition Act. The court ultimately ruled that warrantless searches of automobiles are permissible if law enforcement has probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. The court based its decision on the reasoning that automobiles are mobile and easily moved out of the jurisdiction where a warrant would be sought. The court also distinguished warrantless searches of automobiles from warrantless searches of private dwellings, finding the latter to be more invasive and requiring a higher level of scrutiny. Click HERE for link to opinion.

US v. FLYER

United States v. Flyer, an appeal regarding convictions on charges related to child pornography. The core issue revolves around whether the defendant "possessed" child pornography found in unallocated space on his computer's hard drive. The court analyzes the evidence, focusing on whether Flyer had knowledge and control over the images, even if they were not actively stored in a user-accessible area. The document examines the methods by which the images were allegedly downloaded and stored via peer-to-peer file-sharing software like LineWire. Ultimately, the appellate court affirms in part and reverses in part the district court’s rulings. The document reflects a debate over the definition of "possession" in the context of digital media and child pornography laws.

US V. Spriggs

United States v. Spriggs, heard in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Spriggs pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography and was given a five-level sentencing enhancement for distributing illicit images. The appeal challenged this enhancement, arguing a lack of evidence supporting the expectation of receiving something of value in return for the distribution. The court found that while Spriggs did distribute files, there was insufficient evidence to prove he did so with the expectation of receiving valuable consideration, like faster downloads or more illicit material. Ultimately, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, disagreeing with the lower court and the Eighth Circuit's interpretation of file-sharing program operation.

State v. Mahan

Details the appeal of James Mahan's conviction on 95 counts related to child pornography. Mahan challenged the denial of his motions to suppress evidence and compel discovery related to the Peer Spectre software used to identify his IP address. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no violation of Mahan's Fourth Amendment rights, as the files were shared on a public peer-to-peer network, and the state was not required to provide the source code to Peer Spectre. However, the court did remand the case with instructions to reclassify Mahan as a Tier II sex offender, correcting a clerical error. The court found that there was sufficient cause to issue the search warrant based on the totality of the circumstances presented.

ICAC US v. Edwards

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit's ruling in United States v. Edwards (2015), a case concerning the possession of child pornography. Edwards appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found during a search of his home. The court found that the affidavit supporting the search warrant lacked probable cause, as it primarily focused on Edwards's possession of legal "child erotica," not illegal child pornography. Despite this, the court upheld the denial of the motion to suppress based on the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, arguing that the officers reasonably relied on the warrant issued by the magistrate judge. The court goes into detail discussing the nuances of probable cause when determining the good-faith exception applies. The ruling explores the complexities of establishing probable cause in cases involving online activity and the possession of sexually suggestive material.

Sims V. Seattle (2024) 9th Circuit Court Opinion

This is a memorandum from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressing an appeal of a district court's denial of qualified immunity to police officers involved in a vehicle stop. The officers appealed the denial based on their actions during the stop, which included drawing weapons, frisking the plaintiff, and searching his trunk. The court found that the initial stop's escalation was unlawful, violating the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. Specific findings varied among the officers involved, with some receiving qualified immunity and others not. The court also lacked jurisdiction to fully review a related equal protection claim of racial discrimination. 
 
Click HERE for the ruling

United States V. Vayner

This appellate court opinion, U.S. v. Vayner, reverses a lower court's conviction for false identification. The core issue is the admissibility of a Facebook profile page purportedly belonging to the defendant, with the appeals court finding that the government failed to sufficiently authenticate the page. The opinion analyzes the legal standards for authentication under Federal Rule of Evidence 901, ultimately concluding that the improperly admitted evidence was prejudicial and necessitates a retrial. The case also examines related evidentiary issues, impacting the overall fairness and accuracy of the original trial.
 
Click HERE for ruling