You are viewing an archived webpage. The information on this page may be out of date. Learn about EPIC's recent work at epic.org.

United States v. Ganias

Concerning Whether Courts Have Jurisdiction to Review Cases Brought Based on Violations of Federal Statutory Rights

Introduction

The key issue in United States v. Ganias is whether the government may retain and search copies of electronic files, given that the files were not covered by the warrant under which they were seized. Due to the volume and complexity of digital data, courts have often recognized the need to over-seize electronic data and later review for relevant information off-site. However, the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable search and seizures places into question the subsequent retention and searches of information not covered by the original warrant.

The Second Circuit ruled that the government violated Stavros Ganias’s Fourth Amendment rights when it seized his personal computer records and retained them for more than two-and-a-half years. The government may not “possess indefinitely” Ganias’s records that were beyond the scope of the original warrant while it looked for other evidence to give it reason to search the files again.

The Second Circuit decided to rehear this case en banc, with oral argument to be held on September 30, 2015.

Top News

  • Mass. Supreme Judicial Court Rules Two Days of Mass Transit Records Not Enough to Constitute Search Under Fourth Amendment Mosaic Theory: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an opinion in Commonwealth v. Zachary finding that when Boston Police accessed two days of rider history from a metro pass they did not perform a search under the Fourth Amendment. The court first followed an argument from EPIC's amicus brief urging the court to reject the third-party doctrine for electronic data collected by a third party from an individual for the purpose of obtaining a service. The court decided, "we reject the doctrine as applied to this case, where the data at issue has no connection to the limited purpose for which an individual uses a CharlieCard." The court then applied the mosaic theory of the Fourth Amendment which looks at the whole sweep of a government action and the insights derived when individual data points are aggregated to determine whether a search occurred under the Constitution. The court held that while "an extensive record of an individual's MBTA activity could constitute a search under the mosaic theory, the minimal amount of data obtained in this case does not constitute a violation of art. 14 or the Fourth Amendment." EPIC previously filed an amicus brief in the landmark location privacy case Carpenter v. United States, in which the Supreme Court held that collecting seven days of cell phone location data, considered in aggregate, constituted a search. (Aug. 5, 2021)
  • EPIC & CDT Amicus Brief Highlights Dangers of Unchecked Government Collection of E-Scooter Location Data: EPIC and the Center for Democracy & Technology have filed an amicus brief supporting Los Angeles residents' court fight against a city initiative to collect detailed location information on all individual e-scooter trips taken in Los Angeles. The lawsuit is currently on appeal after the trial court dismissed the case because it found no privacy interest in the data. EPIC and CDT's amicus brief describes how Los Angeles spearheaded a new data collection pipeline called the Mobility Data Specification (or MDS) to standardize the location data that ride share providers collect so that the data can easily be disclosed to governments for analysis—and, potentially, surveillance. EPIC and CDT wrote that MDS has the "power to turn a so-called 'smart city' into a surveillance state that is inimical to the Fourth Amendment." The amicus brief describes how MDS was developed to track any shared mobility vehicle, and that Los Angeles already had plans to expand the program to rideshare data from Uber and Lyft. EPIC and CDT also argued that the city's policy goals could be achieved without collecting individual trip data, and described how aggregation, differential privacy, and sampling are widely used to analyze mobility data and protect privacy more than bulk disclosure of individualized trip data. EPIC routinely files amicus briefs in cases applying the Fourth Amendment to novel technologies. (Aug. 3, 2021)
    • More top news »
  • Wisconsin Supreme Court Refuses to Limit Warrantless Forensic Searches of Cell Phones » (Jun. 29, 2021)
    The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an opinion in Wisconsin v. Burch finding that cell phone data downloaded with a forensic device can be used in a subsequent, unrelated investigation and trial regardless of whether the data was initially obtained without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment. A police department used a forensic device to download the entire contents of the defendant's phone while investigating a hit-and-run and retained a full copy indefinitely. The sheriff's office later accessed and searched the copy during an unrelated homicide investigation and used the defendant's cell phone data as evidence during his trial. The Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to decide the constitutional question. Instead, the Court found that the evidence should not be excluded because the police "acted by the book" and there was no conduct to deter with exclusion. The Court said that the sheriff's office "ha[d] every reason to think [the downloaded data] was lawfully obtained" and found there was no police misconduct because it is "common police practice to share records with other agencies." Dissenting from this holding, Judge Bradley, along with two other justices of the court, recognized that law enforcement "generally needs a warrant to search the data [cell phones] hold." She added that the exclusionary rule should apply in this case because "excluding evidence obtained by following such an unlawful and widespread policy provides significant societal value by both specifically deterring continued adherence to an unconstitutional practice and more broadly incentivizing police agencies to adopt policies in line with the Fourth Amendment." EPIC, along with the ACLU and EFF, filed an amicus brief in the case that argued that the unchecked use of forensic devices to download, store, and share cell data violated the Fourth Amendment by "enabl[ing] the State to rummage at will among a person's most personal and private information whenever it wanted, for as long as it wanted" without a warrant. EPIC regularly files amicus briefs challenging unlawful access to cell phone data.
  • EPIC, ACLU, & EFF Push Court to Limit Warrantless Forensic Searches of Cell Phones » (Mar. 8, 2021)
    EPIC, together with the ACLU and EFF, recently filed an amicus brief in Wisconsin v. Burch, urging the Wisconsin Supreme Court to stop police from conducting warrantless forensic searches of cell phones and indefinitely retaining the data based on vague consent forms. The defendant in the case had verbally consented to a limited search of his text messages during a hit-and-run investigation. Police then asked him to sign a vague consent form that did not specify his phone would be forensically analyzed and the data stored indefinitely. Police used a forensic device to download the entire contents of the phone, retained a full copy, and disclosed data that was outside the scope of his limited verbal consent to another department for use in an unrelated investigation. In their brief, EPIC, ACLU, and EFF argued that someone who consents to a limited search does not reasonably expect police may access, copy, and store vast amounts of personal information held on their phone. These searches violate the Fourth Amendment by “enabl[ing] the State to rummage at will among a person’s most personal and private information whenever it wanted, for as long as it wanted” without a warrant. EPIC regularly files amicus briefs challenging unlawful access to cell phone data.
  • Appeals Court: NSA Call Metadata Program Was Illegal, Likely Unconstitutional » (Sep. 2, 2020)
    The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled today that the NSA's bulk collection of phone call metadata violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and was likely unconstitutional. EPIC and a coalition of groups filed an amicus brief in the case, United States v. Moalin, arguing that call metadata is protected under the Fourth Amendment. "We hold that the telephony metadata collection program exceeded the scope of Congress's [FISA] authorization," the Ninth Circuit wrote. The court rejected the argument that individuals lack a Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in call metadata simply because the data is held by phone companies. The public is "likely to perceive as private several years' worth of telephony metadata collected on an ongoing, daily basis—as demonstrated by the public outcry following the revelation of the metadata collection program," the court explained. The court cited to the coalition amicus brief and to the work of EPIC advisory board member Laura K. Donohue. However, the court declined in this particular case to exclude the unlawfully collected metadata as evidence. In In re EPIC, EPIC petitioned the Supreme Court to end the NSA's bulk phone record collection program, which occurred with the 2015 passage of the USA Freedom Act.
  • EPIC to Fifth Circuit: Do Not Allow Warrantless Cell Phone Searches at the Border » (Jun. 9, 2020)
    EPIC has filed an amicus brief that urges the Fifth Circuit to decline to extend the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement to searches of cell phones. The case, Anibowei v. Wolf, is a civil suit brought by a U.S. citizen attorney to challenge the warrantless searches of his cell phones at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. EPIC argued that the court should “follow the reasoning of Riley and Carpenter and decline to extend the border search exception to cell phones.” EPIC filed amicus briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the privacy interests in cell phone data in both Riley v. California and Carpenter v. United States. The Chief Justice cited EPIC’s brief in his majority opinion in Riley.
  • Axon Ethics Board: No License Plate Readers Without Public Input » (Oct. 28, 2019)
    A new report from the Axon AI and Policing Technology Ethics Board details problems with automated license plate readers, including the disproportionate impact on communities of color and the long-term tracking of innocent drivers. The Axon report recommends public review prior to use of license plate readers. The report also recommends that license plate reader alerts should not be sufficient grounds to stop a vehicle. EPIC made a similar recommendation in an amicus brief for the U.S. Supreme Court for Kansas v. Glover, arguing against traffic stops based solely on alerts that a registered owner's license is suspended. EPIC previously obtained documents about the extensive use of license plate readers by the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. EPIC's Senior Counsel Jeramie Scott has warned about the risk of mass surveillance with technologies such as license plate readers.
  • In Amicus Brief, EPIC Urges Supreme Court to Limit Traffic Stops Based Solely on Owner's License Status » (Sep. 6, 2019)
    EPIC has submitted an amicus brief in Kansas v. Glover, urging the Supreme Court to limit traffic stops based solely on the status of the registered owner. EPIC warned that permitting police stops based on this factor, when combined with Automated License Plate Readers, would "dramatically alter police practices" and "unfairly burden disadvantaged communities." EPIC provided empirical data for the Court which indicate that ALPRs are more widely used in disadvantaged communities and also that car sharing is more prevalent in these communities. The Supreme Court has previously expanded Fourth Amendment protections for new technologies, such as GPS tracking devices, (US v. Jones), cell phones (Riley v. California), and location data (Carpenter v. United States), in response to evolving policing techniques. EPIC recommended that the Court do the same in this case. EPIC routinely files amicus briefs in cases before federal and state courts concerning emerging privacy issues.
  • Utah Becomes First State to Require Warrant for Data Held by Third-parties » (Apr. 1, 2019)
    The State of Utah has become the first state in the nation to require law enforcement to obtain a warrant to obtain electronic data held by third parties such as wireless providers, email providers, search engines, or social media companies. House Bill 57, sponsored by State Representative Craig Hall (R) was signed by Governor Gary Herbert last week. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter v. United States that the Fourth Amendment protects location records generated by mobile phones. Recognizing that other types of data were in equal need of protections, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, said "legislation is much preferable to the development of an entirely new body of Fourth Amendment case law." Utah took that advice and passed broad protections for essentially all data held by third-parties, with exceptions in emergency circumstances. EPIC filed an amicus brief in the Carpenter case, has recommended updates to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and recently proposed a comprehensive strategy for Congress to update federal law after the Carpenter decision.
  • EPIC Warns Appellate Court of Google’s Flawed, Secretive, Massive File Scanning Program » (Mar. 29, 2019)
    EPIC has filed an amicus brief in United States v. Wilson, a case concerning Google’s scanning of billions of personal files for suspected unlawful content, at the behest of the federal government. EPIC argued that “because neither Google nor the Government explained how the image matching technique actually works or presented evidence establishing accuracy and reliability, the Government’s search was unreasonable.” EPIC also explained that “the lower court made a key mistake” by confusing file hashing, which uniquely identifies a file, and image matching, which is prone to false positives. Last year, EPIC filed an amicus brief in a similar case, United States v. Miller. EPIC has promoted algorithmic transparency for many years. EPIC routinely submits amicus briefs on the application of the Fourth Amendment to investigative techniques.
  • Congressional Research Service: Kavanaugh has a "more restrictive view" of the Fourth Amendment » (Aug. 27, 2018)
    The Congressional Research Service, has published a report regarding Supreme Court nominee Judge Kavanaugh's jurisprudence. The nonpartisan CRS provides policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation. The CRS report discusses Judge Kavanaugh's potential impact on the Supreme Court if confirmed. According to the report, Judge Kavanaugh has a "more restrictive view" on the constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures than other judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Notably in Klayman v. Obama, Judge Kavanaugh stated that the National Security Agency's suspicionless surveillance of the American public was "entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment." The report also includes an Appendix with tables that summarizes his rate of concurring and dissenting opinions relative to other judges on the D.C. Circuit and how his opinions have fared when reviewed by the Supreme Court.
  • EPIC Comments on Maryland "Smart Meter" Privacy Bill » (Jan. 16, 2018)
    In response to request for comments from the Maryland legislature, EPIC submitted a statement in support of a bill to prohibit law enforcement from obtaining data recorded by a smart meter without a warrant. Smart meters collect personal data about the use of utility services that can reveal when a person is at home and what they are doing. EPIC stated that "the routine collection of this data, without adequate privacy safeguards, would enable ongoing surveillance of Maryland residents without regard to any criminal suspicion." EPIC said that HR 56 is a "model privacy law that enables innovation while safeguarding personal privacy." EPIC has testified in Congress and submitted comments to NIST and the state of California on smart grid privacy. EPIC has also submitted amicus briefs on Fourth Amendment cases before the Supreme Court, including Carpenter v. United States and Byrd v. United States.
  • Supreme Court to Review Two Cases on Communications Privacy » (Oct. 16, 2017)
    The Supreme Court has agreed to review United States v. Microsoft, a landmark case about whether the U.S. government can force email providers to turn over users’ private messages that are stored outside of the United States. The government claims that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act allows investigators to demand emails from all over the world, in violation of national privacy laws. A federal appeals court rejected the government’s arguments last year and ruled that Microsoft was not required to hand over emails that the company stores in Ireland. The Supreme Court has also agreed to review Dahda v. United States, a related case about whether the Fourth Amendment allows the government to use evidence obtained through an unlawful court order. Both cases are expected to be argued in early 2018. EPIC regularly files amicus briefs in privacy cases before the Supreme Court, including recently in Carpenter v. United States, Packingham v. North Carolina, and Utah v. Strieff.
  • Supreme Court to Hear Two Fourth Amendment Cases » (Sep. 28, 2017)
    The Supreme Court has agreed to review two Fourth Amendment car search cases. In Collins v. Virginia, the Court will decide whether police can search a vehicle parked in the driveway of a private home without first obtaining a warrant. In Byrd v. United States, the Court will decide whether a person driving a rental car loses their expectation of privacy in the vehicle solely because they are not the official driver on the rental agreement. The Court is already set to hear Carpenter v. United States this fall, a major Fourth Amendment case about warrantless searches of cell phone location data. EPIC filed a "friend-of-the-court" brief in that case urging the Court to extend Constitutional protection to cell phone data. EPIC regularly files briefs with the Supreme Court arguing for greater Fourth Amendment protections, including in Utah v. Strieff, Los Angeles v. Patel, and Riley v. California.
  • Senate to Consider Nomination of Senator Sessions for Attorney General » (Jan. 9, 2017)
    Tomorrow the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin hearings on the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions for Attorney General. EPIC submitted a statement to the Committee, which stated “Senator Sessions’ record regarding the privacy rights of Americans raises serious questions about his selection as Attorney General.” EPIC pointed to Sessions’ support for warrantless surveillance of the American people and opposition to government oversight. Senator Sessions also opposed Apple in its dispute with the FBI and failed to support efforts to modernize the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The Lawyers for Good Government also raised concerns about Senator Session’s support for the Privacy Act, the Freedom of Information Act, as well as his independence to “prosecute all criminal acts including those that may implicate the President of the United States.”
  • EPIC Urges Massachusetts High Court to Protect Email Privacy » (Oct. 24, 2016)
    EPIC has filed an amicus brief in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court regarding email privacy. At issue is Google's scanning of the email of non-Gmail users. EPIC argued that this is prohibited by the Massachusetts Wiretap Act. EPIC described Google's complex scanning and analysis of private communications, concluding that it was far more invasive than the interception of a telephone communications, prohibited by state law. A federal court in California recently ruled that non-Gmail users may sue Google for violation of the state wiretap law. EPIC has filed many amicus briefs in federal and state courts and participated in the successful litigation of a cellphone privacy case before the Massachusetts Judicial Court. The EPIC State Policy Project is based in Somerville, Massachusetts.
  • Supreme Court Weakens Fourth Amendment Protections During Police Stops » (Jun. 20, 2016)
    In Utah v. Strieff, the U.S. Supreme Court held today that an outstanding arrest warrant can attenuate “the connection between an unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest.” The holding reverses the Utah Supreme Court, which had suppressed evidence obtained by an officer who stopped Strieff illegally and ran his ID to look for outstanding warrants. EPIC and 22 technical experts filed an amicus brief, warning the Court that reversing the Utah court would allow vast amounts of personal data stored in government databases—much of it inaccurate—to provide post hoc justification for unlawful seizures.
  • Federal Court Leaves Digital Search Law Unresolved » (May. 27, 2016)
    A federal appeals court ruled today that the government did not violate the Fourth Amendment by keeping a copy of files for more than two years after an investigation because it acted in "good faith." EPIC argued that the government must adopt data minimization practices and that the use of evidence was unlawful. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Chin wrote  that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.
  • Supreme Court Approves Remote Computer Hacking by Police » (Apr. 28, 2016)
    The U.S. Supreme Court has voted to approve changes to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which will allow judges to issue "remote access" warrants. These warrants authorize mass computer searches, even when the targets are outside the jurisdiction of the court. EPIC criticized the proposal in a statement last year, arguing that the procedure enables searches outside traditional Fourth Amendment requirements and would not provide adequate notice to those subject to search.  Congress can amend or reject the proposal. Senator Ron Wyden said today he would introduce legislation to reverse the proposal.
  • Supreme Court to Consider Fourth Amendment ID-Check Case » (Feb. 22, 2016)
    The Supreme Court will hear arguments today in Utah v. Strieff. At issue is the use of evidence obtained from government databases following an illegal police stop. In a brief signed by twenty-one technical experts and legal scholars, EPIC warned about the vast amount of personal data, much of it inaccurate, stored in government databases and pointed to the failure of the Justice Department to enforce Privacy Act safeguards. EPIC argued that "a diminished Fourth Amendment standard coupled with a weakened Privacy Act is truly a recipe for a loss of liberty in America." EPIC had filed amicus briefs in several related Supreme Court cases, including Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District, Tolentino v. New York, and Herring v. U.S..
  • EPIC Urges Supreme Court to Uphold Fourth Amendment Safeguards for Police Stops » (Jan. 29, 2016)
    EPIC has filed a "friend-of-the-court" brief in Utah v. Strieff, a U.S. Supreme Court case about whether the Fourth Amendment allows evidence to be admitted after an illegal stop. Mr. Strieff was unlawfully detained by an officer, who checked his ID and then arrested him on an unrelated outstanding warrant. In a brief, signed by twenty-one technical experts and legal scholars, EPIC detailed a number of sweeping government databases that contain inaccurate and detailed records about Americans' noncriminal activity. EPIC argued that "a diminished Fourth Amendment standard coupled with a weakened Privacy Act is truly a recipe for a loss of liberty in America." EPIC previously argued against compelled identification during police stops in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District and Tolentino v. New York.
  • Senate Considers Modest Updates to ECPA » (Sep. 16, 2015)
    The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on proposed amendments to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The bill under consideration would establish a warrant requirement for the disclosure of electronic communications. The ECPA Amendments Act would also require notice to customers whose communications have been collected. Senator Leahy said that passage of the bill should be a "no brainer." But the bill stops short of several updates recommended by EPIC, including protections for location data, data minimization requirements, and end-to-end encryption for commercial e-mail services.
  • In Appellate Brief, EPIC Argues for Limitations on Government Digital Searches » (Jul. 30, 2015)
    In an amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, EPIC argued that there are Constitutional limits on government searches of electronic storage devices. EPIC urged affirmance of United States v. Ganias, which held that the Government violated the Fourth Amendment by retaining files seized years earlier. After the government appealed, the court agreed to rehear the case. EPIC argued that data minimization practices should be followed for electronic searches, particularly after the Supreme Court's decision in Riley v. California. EPIC endorsed the approach set out in United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, which allows a government agency to undertake appropriate searches without unnecessarily violating privacy interests. In Quon v. City of Ontario, CA (2012), EPIC recommended that the Supreme Court adopt a similar approach.
  • Supreme Court Limits Traffic Stop Searches » (Apr. 21, 2015)
    The Supreme Court issued its opinion today in Rodriguez v. United States, a Fourth Amendment case involving the use of a drug-detection dog during a traffic stop. The Court found that it was unlawful for a police officer to detain a driver for the sole purpose of conducting a "sniff" test after the traffic stop was completed. The Supreme Court rejected the Government's argument that extending the stop to wait for a dog to search for drugs was "only a de minimis" intrusion of Fourth Amendment rights. EPIC previously filed an amicus brief in Florida v. Harris, a similar case before the Supreme Court concerning the use of canines for drug detection, arguing that the Fourth Amendment requires routine testing of investigatory techniques to assess reliability and establish reasonableness.
  • Advisory Committee Approves Rules to Expand Police Hacking Authority » (Mar. 18, 2015)
    According to a news report, a committee of the Federal Judicial Conference voted on Monday to approve changes to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under the revised rule, judges could issue "remote access" warrants authorizing law enforcement to search computers remotely, even when the target is outside the jurisdiction of the court. EPIC criticized the proposal in a statement presented by EPIC Senior Counsel Alan Butler last fall, arguing that the rules would not provide adequate notice as required under the Fourth Amendment. EPIC previously filed an amicus brief on a similar issue, the delivery of warrants via facimile. The decision of the advisory committee is only one of several steps before the change is adopted by the judiciary.
  • Wikimedia Sues NSA Over Mass Internet Surveillance » (Mar. 10, 2015)
    Wikimedia filed a federal lawsuit against the NSA over the mass surveillance of Internet communications. Wikimedia asked the court to halt the government's upstream collection—the practice of directly tapping into the Internet backbone that carries communications across the U.S. Wikimedia argues that upstream collection exceeds statutory authority and violates the First and Fourth Amendments, as well as Article III of the Constitution. Explaining the case, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales wrote, "Privacy is an essential right. It makes freedom of expression possible, and sustains freedom of inquiry and association." In 2013, EPIC petitioned the Supreme Court to stop the NSA's bulk telephone metadata program.
  • Supreme Court to Hear Case About Enhanced Search Techniques » (Jan. 6, 2012)
    The US Supreme Court has decided to review Florida v. Jardines, a case that addresses whether a dog sniff at the front door of a home is a search that requires probable cause. This case follows Illinois v. Caballes, a 2005 case in which the Court held that a dog sniff around a car during a routine traffic stop was not a search. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that Caballes was inapplicable in the case, and that a dog sniff in front of a home is a Fourth Amendment search. This case also implicates the government's use of "enhanced" investigative techniques that are designed to detect contraband. Because these techniques are imperfect and also allow the government to search for material that is not illegal, EPIC has argued that a Fourth Amendment probable cause standard should apply. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Airport Body Scanners).
  • Federal Appeals Court Holds Individuals Have a Right to Record Public Officials » (Sep. 1, 2011)
    In a case concerning the arrest of a person who used a cell phone camera to film a police officer, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has held in Glik v. City of Boston that the First Amendment protects "the filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place." The Court found that members of the public enjoy the same rights as credentialed members of the press, stating that "the public's right of access to information is coextensive with the press." The Court further held that, in arresting Glik, the City of Boston violated the Fourth Amendment probable cause requirement as there was no reason to believe that Gilk had violated any state law. EPIC agreed that the Massachusetts state wiretap law was not intended to limit the ability of the public to record police activity, but did not file an amicus brief in the case. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC Amicus Curiae Briefs.
  • Supreme Court: Strip-Search of Teenager Violated Constitutional Rights » (Jun. 25, 2009)
    The Supreme Court delivered a 8-1 opinion ruling that a strip-search of a thirteen-year-old girl by school officials looking for an ibuprofen tablet violated the Fourth Amendment. Justice Souter writing for the Court held that the search was unreasonable and that school searches are permissible when they are "not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction." But a majority of the Justices also said that the school officials were not liable for damages because it had not been "clearly established" that the search was unlawful. Justices Stevens and Ginsburg disagreed and said that a previous Supreme Court case made clear that the search was "excessively intrusive." Justice Thomas wrote in dissent that the search was permissible. See also EPIC's page on Student Privacy.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Fourth Amendment was violated when, pursuant to a warrant, the government seized and cloned three computer hard drives containing both responsive and non-responsive files, retained the cloned hard drives for some two-and-a-half years, and then searched the non-responsive files pursuant to a subsequently issued warrant.

2. Considering all relevant factors, whether the government agents in this case acted reasonably and in good faith such that the files obtained from the cloned hard drives should not be suppressed.

Background

Stavros Ganias owned an accounting practice in Connecticut. In 2003, the Army obtained a warrant to search Ganias’s offices for evidence of fraud. During its search, the Army made “identical copies, or forensic mirror images, of the hard drives of all three of Ganias’s computers.”  Thirteen months later, the government finished reviewing the relevant materials but continued to keep files not covered by the Army warrant. Almost two-and-a-half years later, in 2006, the government obtained another warrant to search the stored files as part of a new IRS tax evasion investigation.

Using this evidence, the government prosecuted Ganias in the District Court for the District of Connecticut. A jury convicted Ganias of tax evasion. Ganias appealed in the Second Circuit, which vacated his conviction. The Second Circuit held that, under the Fourth Amendment, the government may not indefinitely possess records beyond the scope of the Army warrant while looking for other evidence to give it reason to search the files again. On June 29, 2015, the Second Circuit decided to rehear the appeal en banc. Oral argument will be heard on September 30, 2015.

EPIC's Interest

EPIC has long advocated for application of the “interception” standard to email, and filed a 2004 amicus brief on this issue in U.S. v. Councilman.

EPIC also supports the framework established by the Ninth Circuit in Comprehensive Drug Testing to address the scope of electronic data searches—including the obligations of minimizing and deleting non-pertinent data after the search is conducted. EPIC recently addressed the CDT framework in its brief in Quon v. City of Ontario, CA.

More recently, EPIC filed a brief in Riley v. California, advocating for greater Fourth Amendment protections for digital data. And the Supreme Court in a unanimous opinion agreed, finding that the traditional rule governing the seizure of physical items incident to a lawful arrest does not authorize a search of the digital contents of a seized cell phone.

Legal Documents

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 12-240-cr.

United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 08-cr-224

  • Ruling on Motions for New Trial & for Reconsideration, United States v. Ganias, No. 08-224, 2011 WL 4738684 (D. Conn. Oct. 5, 2011).
  • United States v. Ganias, No. 08-224, 2011 WL 3563104 (D. Conn. Aug. 12, 2011).
  • Ruling on Motion to Suppress Evidence, United States v. Ganias, No. 08-224, 2011 WL 2532396 (D. Conn. June 24, 2011).

Relevant Publications

News

Share this page:

Defend Privacy. Support EPIC.
US Needs a Data Protection Agency
2020 Election Security