CA11: Qualified immunity applies to DA’s investigator who subpoenaed electronic communications

In a qualified immunity case, the plaintiff cannot show that this right to be free from subpoena of personal emails was well established, particularly in light of Quon which chose not to decide the broad question of privacy in electronic communications as the technology evolves. Rehberg v. Paulk, 611 F.3d 828 (11th Cir. 2010)*:

As these varied cases suggest, the questions of whether Fourth Amendment principles governing a search of Rehberg’s home also should apply to subpoenas sent to a third-party ISP for electronic data stored on the third-party’s server, and whether Rehberg had a reasonable privacy expectation in the contents of his personal emails sent voluntarily through that third-party ISP, are complex, difficult, and “far-reaching” legal issues that we should be cautious about resolving too broadly. As the Supreme Court advised us, “[t]he judiciary risks error by elaborating too fully on the Fourth Amendment implications of emerging technology before its role in society has become clear.” [Quon] at 10. Given the lack of precedent, we now question whether it would be prudent in this case and on this limited factual record to establish broad precedent as to the reasonable privacy expectation in email content. Moreover, because this is a qualified immunity case, we need not reach the underlying constitutional issue. Instead, we can resolve this case narrowly, cf. id. at 1, because at a minimum Rehberg has not shown his alleged constitutional right was clearly established.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.