“Court curbs laptop searches at U.S. border”: Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times has this report.
The Associated Press reports that “Court limits border searches of electronic devices.”
At Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, David Kravets has a post titled “Appeals Court Curbs Border Agents’ Carte Blanche Power to Search Your Gadgets.”
At Politico.com, Tal Kopan has a post titled “Border agents need ‘reasonable suspicion’ for deep search of electronics.”
At her “Trial Insider” blog, Pamela A. MacLean has a post titled “Border Property Searches Need Reasonable Suspicion.”
Courthouse News Service reports that “9th Circuit Gets Tough on Border Gadget Searches.”
At the “Lawfare” blog, Paul Rosenzweig has a post titled “US v. Cotterman — Laptop Searches at the Border Require ‘Reasonable Suspicion.’”
And at “Techdirt,” Mike Masnick has a post titled “9th Circuit Appeals Court: 4th Amendment Applies At The Border; Also: Password Protected Files Shouldn’t Arouse Suspicion.”
My earlier coverage of today’s en banc Ninth Circuit ruling appears here and here.
“SCOTUSblog on camera: Nina Totenberg interview, Part 5.” Today, “SCOTUSblog” has posted at this link part five of its interview with NPR’s legal affairs correspondent, Nina Totenberg.
“En Banc Ninth Circuit Holds That Computer Forensic Searches Are Like ‘Virtual Strip Searches’ And Require Reasonable Suspicion At the Border”: Orin Kerr has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.” Kerr’s post notes a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that might allow federal prosecutors to seek U.S. Supreme Court review even though the prosecution was on the winning side of today’s en banc Ninth Circuit ruling.
My earlier coverage of today’s ruling can be accessed here.
“Toward a Positive Theory of Privacy Law”: Law professor Lior Strahilevitz has posted this article online at SSRN.
“A ‘Court Unpacking Plan’ Threatens Judicial Independence”: Andrew Cohen has this essay today at the Brennan Center for Justice.
My earlier coverage of this matter can be accessed here.
“Judge Alex Kozinski: From Communist Romania to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.” Today, reason.tv has posted on YouTube the video of Matt Welch’s recent interview of Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski.
And for those who want even more video coverage of Chief Judge Kozinski, earlier this week The Recorder posted online video titled “Privacy Roundtable Highlights.”
Today, the en banc Ninth Circuit delivered its conclusion to the ongoing saga previously described here as “Welcome back, Cotterman”: The original three-judge Ninth Circuit panel’s opinion in United States v. Cotterman began:
Today we examine a question of first impression in the Ninth Circuit: whether the search of a laptop computer that begins at the border and ends two days later in a Government forensic computer laboratory almost 170 miles away can still fall within the border search doctrine.
The original three judge panel, by a vote of 2-to-1, rejected Cotterman’s challenge to the legality of the search. My earlier coverage of that ruling can be accessed here. Thereafter, the Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc, a development that I previously reported on at this link.
Today, the majority on an 11-judge en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit agreed with the panel majority in rejecting Cotterman’s challenge to the legality of the search. However, the majority further held that the forensic examination of the defendant’s computer required a showing of reasonable suspicion — a standard that the majority found satisfied. Three judges disagreed with the majority’s adoption of a reasonable suspicion standard for searches of electronic storage devices that begin at a border crossing. You can access today’s en banc Ninth Circuit ruling at this link.
The dissenters argue that today’s en banc ruling creates a circuit split by adopting a reasonable suspicion standard to govern border searches of electronic storage devices instead of allowing suspicionless searches. Yet because the federal government was on the winning side of today’s Ninth Circuit ruling, it remains to be seen whether federal prosecutors will be able to seek U.S. Supreme Court review simply because they disagree with the legal principles employed in reaching a result that favored the federal government.
“Idaho first state to have fetal pain law rejected”: The Associated Press has this report.
Terry Baynes of Reuters reports that “Lawyer-doctor helps strike down Idaho abortion ban.”
And in related coverage, The AP has a report headlined “Anti-abortion groups divided over legal tactics.”
“NJ’s Christie committed to sports betting fight”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Gov. Chris Christie says he’ll take the fight to legalize sports gambling in New Jersey to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary.”
“Case to watch: Challenge to 2nd Circuit on FLSA retaliation.” Carlyn Kolker of Reuters has this report.
“Sloviter, Former Chief Judge of Third Circuit, Is Set to Step Down”: In today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Saranac Hale Spencer has an article (log-in required for full access) that begins, “Judge Dolores Sloviter, former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, is set to take senior status in June, making her the second judge in as many weeks to announce her departure.”
“Supreme Court gives 15-year-old boy new trial in killing; Paul Henry Gingerich is believed to be the youngest Hoosier ever sentenced to prison as an adult”: The Indianapolis Star has this news update.
And The Associated Press reports that “Indiana boy could face juvenile hearing in killing.”
“Carl Levin: No Regrets About Stopping Filibuster Reform.” Sahil Kapur of TPM DC has this report.
“Aaron Swartz’s Father On MIT’s Handling Of Case: ‘Something I’ll Never Recover From.'” 90.9 WBUR-FM Boston posted this audio segment online yesterday.
“Justice Kennedy library, learning center christened at Sacramento federal courthouse”: Denny Walsh has this article today in The Sacramento Bee.
