S.D.N.Y.: No REP in what is shared with a cloud AI program

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in what is shared with a cloud AI program, even if it’s in anticipation of litigation. Therefore, no attorney-client privilege in what the client shares with AI trying to help his attorney. United States v. Heppner, No. 1:25-cr-00503-JSR (S.D. N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026). [I’m waiting for the case where the AI provider gets a search warrant for an AI history on a suspect. That’s probably already happened. That’s a logical step from search history warrants.] Update: ATL: AI Research Can Be Used Against Clients In Court. It Shouldn’t Be. by Carolyn Elegant (“Why can’t we just say that an expectation of privacy applies to generative AI and speak a privilege into existence?”)

Plaintiff plausibly alleged a Fourth Amendment violation for a warrantless entry into his house without any exigent circumstances shown by the officers. Harvey v. Montiel, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 5156 (5th Cir. Feb. 20, 2026).*

Defendant punched his stepfather who lived with him and broke his nose. He temporarily vacated, had his key, and intended to retrieve stuff. He still had apparent authority to consent to a search. [Not far from the facts of Illinois v. Rodriguez.] United States v. Estadella, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 5177 (11th Cir. Feb. 20, 2026).

This entry was posted in AI, Apparent authority, Computer and cloud searches, Emergency / exigency, Privileges, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.