Federal Judge Gives Government Open-Ended Access To All Content In A Suspect's Gmail Account
from the a-warrant-is-NOT-a-permission-slip-to-violate-the-4th-Amendment dept
Even though the government hates to get warrants for searches, sometimes it has no choice. But just because there's a warrant involved doesn't mean the search will be any less invasive. Warrant applications are supposed to contain specifics about what is being sought and where it likely resides based on the sworn statements of investigators. Unfortunately, this often doesn't seem to be the case, especially when it comes to electronic data.
Two recent pushbacks by magistrate judges have sent the government back to its desk to rewrite overly vague warrant requests. (In one case, this resulted in 'judge shopping,' rather than a rewrite. The new judge was unimpressed.) Judges willing to make the government fine tune warrant requests are still a very small minority, however. The more common approach is exemplified by Judge Gabriel Gorenstein of the Southern District of New York.
A New York judge defended a controversial order that gave the government access to all content of the Gmail account of a target in a money laundering investigation, holding that courts have long recognized the practical need for law enforcement to seize documents if only to determine whether they fall within the warrant.As John Ribeiro's article notes, other recent decisions have found that overly broad warrant requests are stretching the Fourth Amendment to the breaking point by not limiting the time period or scope of the electronic communications being sought. The government, on the other hand, has argued (with Gorenstein echoing) that seizing months of emails is no different than cloning an entire hard drive -- another common process deployed during criminal investigations. That it's no different doesn't suddenly make it more "right" or less of a violation of privacy.
Those other decisions (one of which Gorenstein refers to in his) had no noticeable effect on the approval of this warrant, which asked for everything… and got it.
The New York court, in contrast, granted on June 11 a warrant that permitted law enforcement to obtain emails and other information from a Gmail account, including the address book and draft mails, and to permit a search of the emails for certain specific categories of evidence.Moving on from his "lesser of two wrongs" argument, Gorenstein added that allowing the service provider to return relevant communications would likely result in important information being overlooked.
"While an agent steeped in the investigation could recognize the significance of particular language in emails, an employee of the email host would be incapable of doing so," he wrote.While this is likely true to some extent (the decision goes on to note that criminals often use codewords to discuss illegal activity -- something private company techs may not be versed in), the warrant itself is still highly problematic.
The court did not also place any limits on the manner or time frame in which the emails should be searched or retained.So, the government will be given a suspect's entire email account and allowed to peruse it for anything for as long as it wants to.
As we've seen just recently, this is the sort of open-ended access the government shouldn't be given. In June, the Second Circuit Court returned a decision that said the government violated a person's Fourth Amendment rights by holding onto seized information for much longer than the period stated in the warrant. Not only did the feds dig through irrelevant information (after swearing in the warrant request that it wouldn't), it continued to do so until it came across something of possible interest to another federal agency (the IRS) and forwarded the data it supposedly wasn't digging through. Gorenstein's approved warrant contains no such safeguards, which means the feds literally can't go beyond the scope of the request. It's a blank check disguised as a nod to the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. It does not go on to say "...unless you get a warrant." The warrant process is supposed to limit unreasonable searches and seizures by forcing law enforcement to detail (in a sworn statements) the specifics of what's being sought and the efforts that will be made to limit the seizure to the scope of the investigation. There's nothing "reasonable" about this open-ended request. Gorenstein's decision places ease of law enforcement access above Constitutional rights.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, email, gabriel gorenstein, sdny, warrants
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Judge shopping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that is where the defense should start at trial. Attacking the fact that the warrant, although signed by a judge, is clearly unconstitutional since it does not "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is in no way comparable to the NSA practice of general warrants or police departments everywhere aversion to getting warrants and/or lying in order to get them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not exactly true. The fourth amendment protects against general warrants as well. There are specific criteria that has to be met for the warrant to be constitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, if anything, this is even worse than NSA spying. At least their pretext could be seen as a fig leaf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Going by this warrant, if you want to know a defendants legal strategy, just ask for a warrant for all their emails, then read all their emails between them and their lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
No unreasonable searches, AND a warrant must particularly describe the things to be seized. Not no unreasonable searches UNLESS you get a warrant. So the question is whether this search was reasonable, and whether the warrant was particular enough to satisfy the 4th Amendment. Both points have to pass, and this judge, like you, has no problem with the search.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Might as well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sooner or later...
And sadly and more horrifically, each of us will voluntarily wear the swastika.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's bullshit. This isn't Nazi Germany, it's no cause for outrage, yes some aspects of the law may need adjustment, as they always have and always will, but this goes way, way over the top.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I must have read a different article. Where did he make that case? Or suggest that judges shouldn't be involved?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WOW,
HOW about the idiots that have had 20-40 years of work in gov. jobs that surround those we elect??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't imagine Google liking this at all.
I expect that Google is wondering the same thing. They've already decided that being compromised to the NSA is bad for business.
Has Google had time to either capitulate or to pen an objection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For some reason my prior comment god witheld for moderator review.
Google, Google, Google, Google, Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two comments have been witheld.
Gòõg1ê.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Springs to mind every time something like this comes up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can't imagine Google liking this at all.
If the only contents of the mail is Click here on xxx.com/abcqrz to read your message, and the message expires after a short time the government only gets a dead link to a deleted message on an offshore server.
One could further obfuscate the actual URL hosting the message by using a link redirector.
of course, the government could try to subpoena the message contents from the hosting provider, but if the warrant is issued a month after the message is read it's likely that all records are gone.
The hosting provider can be any free service offering file, text or image sharing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
here we go
other than ending the US government (which is specifically and exactly what you are asking, with your bizarre view that warrants only allow for targeted retrieval of specific items, which is 100% completely wrong) what is your solution to this problem? You are reading the Fourth Amendment to prohibit law enforcement all together, whether you realize it or not.
EVERYTHING--EVERYTHING--you have written applies to a search warrant for the physical premises. Everything is fair game; no time periods, specific items (though what they are looking for can be specified), etc. Evidence of other crimes is ROUTINELY discovered and ROUTINELY used against the defendant. If looked at from a Murray Rothbard angle that might look like it is "coercive," but I don't know of anyone until Mike Masnick who treats it with outrage and contempt. Including courts of law and even defense attorneys.
Your statement "The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. It does not go on to say '...unless you get a warrant.' The warrant process is supposed to limit unreasonable searches and seizures by forcing law enforcement to detail," is absolutely, positively, clearly wrong in every way. Think of this: police routinely get warrants for suspicion of selling one drug, and find another. and guns. and stolen items. Guess what? They prosecute ALL of it, and--MOST IMPORTANTLY--judges do NOT throw the evidence out because it violates 4A. Warrantless searching is what is "unreasonable." The warrant makes it "reasonable." I note you cite no case law or statue to back up this hilarious and arch reinterpretation of 200+ years of US (and also common) law, because you can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: here we go
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment
On that link I believe you will find the "case law or statute" that backs up the Fourth Amendment interpretations made in this article you claim can't be cited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: here we go
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: here we go
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Huh, seems to be right there in the Constitution. How bizarre. So if you're correct, then a warrant doesn't have to particularly describe the persons or things to be seized. Has the 4th Amendment been repealed and I missed it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ONE RING CIRCUS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]