{"id":19049,"date":"2015-10-01T16:37:34","date_gmt":"2015-10-01T21:37:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=19049"},"modified":"2015-10-01T16:37:34","modified_gmt":"2015-10-01T21:37:34","slug":"lawfare-oral-argument-recap-united-states-v-ganias","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=19049","title":{"rendered":"Lawfare: Oral Argument Recap: United States v. Ganias"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Lawfare: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.lawfareblog.com\/oral-argument-recap-united-states-v-ganias\">Oral Argument Recap: United States v. Ganias<\/a> by Michael Knapp  <\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sat en banc Wednesday afternoon for the first time in almost two years.  The occasion?  An otherwise-mundane tax fraud prosecution that propelled the Fourth Amendment into the digital era.  <\/p>\n<p>My backgrounder on Tuesday provides some of the details of the Ganias case, but the Court asked for briefing on two issues: First, did the government\u2019s 2006 search\u2014pursuant to a warrant\u2014of data that was obtained during the execution of a 2003 warrant violate the Fourth Amendment, given that the data was not responsive to the first warrant?  Second, if so, did the good faith exception nonetheless preclude application of the exclusionary rule?  Roughly halfway through the Government\u2019s argument, though, Chief Judge Robert Katzmann hinted at the underlying privacy issues that helped explain why the courtroom was full: He asked whether, if the government collected private data on him, or anyone else in the room, it would be obligated to inform that person.  (The Government artfully sidestepped the question, saying that it would have no way of knowing whether it held any such information because it wouldn\u2019t review nonresponsive data.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Lawfare: Oral Argument Recap: United States v. Ganias by Michael Knapp The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sat en banc Wednesday afternoon for the first time in almost two years. The occasion? An otherwise-mundane tax fraud prosecution &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=19049\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19049","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-computer-searches"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19049","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=19049"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19049\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19050,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19049\/revisions\/19050"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=19049"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=19049"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=19049"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}