Home » Blog » Federal Court

Federal Defense Attorney on Search and Seizure of Electronic Devices

Posted on March 7, 2010 by W.F. Casey Ebsary

Search Warrant

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney has reviewed Government policies on Search and Seizure of Electronic Devices at borders. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) policy is to treat computers, laptops, and other electronic devices like suitcases and backpacks in terms of border searches. It appears under current DHS policy, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents believe they are not required to provide justification or a reason for these electronic searches.

In a response to a recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, CBP disclosed the following: Electronic devices that were searched included laptops, USB thumb drives, hard drives, cell phones, digital cameras, and even DVD disks . From October 2008 through June 2009, CBP officials searched over 1,500 electronic devices belonging to travelers.

Cell phones were the most often searched and seized devices between October 2008 and June 2009. From July 2008 to June 2009, and Border Protection (CBP) transferred electronic files found on travelers’ devices to third-party agencies almost 300 times. More than 80 percent of the transfers involved the CBP making copies of travelers’ files. Over half the time, these unknown agencies asserted independent bases for retaining or seizing the transferred files.

As a defense attorney, it appears that the best strategy when traveling is to leave electronic devices at home.

Border Search?
Tell Me Your Story Toll Free 1-877-793-9290.

Sources: https://www.informationweek.com/news/
government/security/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=219500468
https://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/
FeaturedDocs/DHS_ForeignTravelThreatAssessment.pdf
https://www.aclu.org/print/national-security/customs-and-border
-protection-cbp-first-production-documents
Federal Defense Attorney on Search and Seizure of Electronic Devices

Federal Sentencing in Computer Related Crimes

Posted on March 6, 2010 by W.F. Casey Ebsary

crimes computer Tampa Florida Computer Crimes Attorney/Lawyer

For More Computer Crimes Info

Tampa Florida Federal Criminal Defense Attorney, Lawyer W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary notes that Computer crimes draw stiff sentences in Federal Courts. However, at a United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) hearing in Chicago, a Judge said it would give him comfort in affirming below-guideline sentences in child porn cases to see data showing there are lots of below guidelines sentences. There is such data.

In the first three quarters of 2009, judges sentenced below the guideline range in 503 of 1195 cases (42%) and the government moved for a below-guideline sentence in another 128 cases (10.7%), 101 of which were for reasons other than 5K1.1, that is, for reasons under 3553(a). See USSC Preliminary Data Report, Table 5.

The complete Report is at the link below:

If you have a computer problem in Federal or State Court – Tell Me Your Story Toll Free 1-877-793-9290.

Source: https://www.ussc.gov/sc_cases/USSC_2009_Quarter_Report_3rd.pdf.

White Collar Sentencing in Federal Court

Posted on March 6, 2010 by W.F. Casey Ebsary

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney, Lawyer

White Collar Sentencing in Federal Court Crackdown

White Collar Sentencing in Federal Court Crackdown noted by Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney, W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary, Jr. – The Eleventh Circuit Court declared a sentence illegal when a white collar defendant was not sent to prison. The trial court has repeatedly placed the defendant on the federal equivalent of probation. The United States Attorney has repeatedly appealed the below guidelines sentence, and the appeals court has repeatedly reversed.

The court concluded “it is difficult to imagine a would-be white-collar criminal being deterred from stealing millions of dollars from his company by the threat of a purely probationary sentence, regardless of how much probation that person received.”

The complete decision is available here:

Opinion of the Appeals Court

White Collar Financial Fraud Defense? Tell Me Your Story Toll Free 1-877-793-9290 .

Note: This office did not represent any parties in this case.

Source: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200814712.pdf

White Collar Sentencing in Federal Court

Junk Science and Federal Criminal Defense

Posted on December 15, 2009 by W.F. Casey Ebsary

Junk Science

Florida Federal Criminal Defense Attorney, W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary, Jr. just returned from a great seminar on fighting the admissibility of Junk Science in federal criminal cases.

To attack Junk Scientific Evidence, one must look beyond the practitioners of the field itself. State of Maryland v. Bryan Rose, K06-0545 (Cir. Balt. Co. 2008) (“general acceptance of latent print identification by its practitioners does not constitute general acceptance by the ‘scientific community’ . . .”); United States v. Saelee, 162 F.Supp.2d 1097 (“Finally, the evidence does indicate that there is general acceptance of the theories and techniques involved in the field of handwriting analysis among the closed universe of forensic document examiners. This proves nothing.”). In most cases, the Government has not and will not be able to produce anyone beyond law enforcement technicians.

The seminar was available for free here: Junk Science in Federal Courts https://centrallaw.com/JunkScienceInFederalCourt_files/frame.htm

Thanks to Attorney Frank Godbold.

Computer Search Warrants

Posted on October 16, 2009 by W.F. Casey Ebsary

Computer Search Warrants

“Government cannot rely on the Fourth Amendment’s plain-view doctrine in cases where the investigators rely on the intermingling of computerized records”

Computer Search Warrants

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney reports severe limits in Computer Search Warrants and Searches – Another court has laid out detailed procedures for issuance and execution of search warrants for computers that contain files outside the scope of a search warrant. The court ruled that the Government cannot rely on the Fourth Amendment’s plain-view doctrine in cases where the investigators rely on the intermingling of computerized records to justify a broad seizure and examination of electronically stored records. United States v.Comprehensive Drug Testing Inc., 9th Cir.(en banc), No. 05-10067 (8/26/09).

The court states, “The process of segregating electronic data that is seizable from that which is not must not become a vehicle for the government to gain access to data which it has no probable cause to collect.” The plain-view doctrine is an issue courts have been struggling with.

Detailed procedures for searches of computer electronic data:

1. The government must not rely on the plain view doctrine in digital evidence cases.

2. Search must be either done by specialized personnel with a procedure to prevent disclosure investigators of information that is not the target of the warrant.

3. The government’s search method must be designed to uncover only the information for which it has probable cause.

When Computers Land in Court, We Can Help – Tell Me Your Story Toll Free – 1-877-793-9290.

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney on Computer Forensic Searches and Warrants

Source: https://pub.bna.com/cl/0510067a.pdf

Computer Search Warrant Tampa – Overbroad

Posted on September 23, 2009 by W.F. Casey Ebsary

Computer Search Warrant

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney, Lawyer W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary, Jr. , noted a recent case decided on the scope of search warrants issued in computer cases. Wired magazine noted:

“A divided 11-judge federal appeals court panel has dramatically narrowed the government’s search-and-seizure powers in the digital age, ruling Wednesday that federal prosecutors went too far when seizing 104 professional baseball players’ drug results when they had a warrant for just 10.”

The Court suggested that during a computer’s hard drive search, data should be culled to include the specific data described in the search warrant. The entire hard drive should not be subject to a wholesale review. When the entire drive is seized, an independent third party should review the data. The information should be limited by the Court. The term “filter teams” has been used to refer to the third party who review data seized by a search warrant.

The Appeals Court stated that the judge reviewing the search warrant application should “deny the warrant altogether” if the government does not agree to a third-party review in cases where data will be searched.

Has your data been the subject of a Search Warrant? We can help. Call Toll Free 1-877-793-9290 .

Source: wired.com/threatlevel/2009/08/privacyboost/

Computer Search Warrant Tampa – Overbroad

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney on eMail and Subpoenas

Posted on September 11, 2009 by W.F. Casey Ebsary

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney on eMail and Subpoenas

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney notes that one court just held a Search Warrant for eMail was unnecessary, where a federal subpoena was issued. The federal Judge ruled that an Internet Service Provider must comply with the Government subpoena for E-Mail. In this cybercrime prosecution, the Government had subpoenaed the Internet service provider (ISP) and sought the contents of electronic communications. The subpoena requested previously opened or sent e-mail that belonged to the defendant.

The ISP failed to produce e-mails that had been stored for fewer than 181 days, the Government filed a motion to compel production of the e-mails’ content. The ISP claimed the information sought required a search warrant. The Court ruled that the Stored Communications Act (SCA), required the ISP to comply with the Government’s subpoena if the e-mails are held or maintained solely to provide the customer storage or computer processing services.

The court further ruled that previously opened e-mails stored by the ISP for web-based e-mail systems—as distinguished from other e-mail systems—are not in “electronic storage,” which is defined by the Wiretap Act as storage incidental to electronic transmission and for the purposes of backup protection of the e-mail. Based on this finding, the court ordered the ISP to comply fully with the Government’s subpoena.

When Federal Subpoenas are issued, we can help. Tell me your story Toll Free 1-877-793-9290 .

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney Subpoena eMail

Source: United States v. Weaver, 2009 WL 2163478 (C.D. Ill. July 15, 2009).

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney on Juror Misconduct

Posted on April 24, 2009 by W.F. Casey Ebsary

Juror Misconduct

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary, Jr. , notes that the New York Times has uncovered a rash of mistrials resulting from jurors using technology during voir dire (jury selection) and throughout the trial and deliberations.

During a federal drug trial in Florida a juror admitted that he had been doing research on the case on the Internet The judge had instructed the jury not to rely on evidence not presented in court. The other eight jurors had been doing the same thing. The judge declared a mistrial- pulling the plug on an eight-week trial.

The complete story is available here.

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney on Juror Misconduct