{"id":60958,"date":"2025-05-04T09:14:40","date_gmt":"2025-05-04T14:14:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=60958"},"modified":"2025-05-04T15:00:16","modified_gmt":"2025-05-04T20:00:16","slug":"e-d-mo-carpenter-does-not-protect-isp-information","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=60958","title":{"rendered":"E.D.Mo.: <em>Carpenter<\/em> does not protect ISP information"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Carpenter creates no protection for ISP subscriber information.  No Due Process rights were violated though a \u00a7 1509 summons. United States v. Meyrand, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84060 (E.D. Mo. May 2, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This court declined to abandon the automobile exception in favor of electronic warrants seven years ago, and things haven\u2019t changed. State v. McClain, 2025 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 50 (May 2, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Defendant\u2019s Rule 41(g) motion for return of property is denied because there\u2019s a pending criminal case involving it. United States v. Xian Long Ruan, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84013 (W.D. Okla. May 2, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Defendant\u2019s post-conviction particularity claim was essentially resolved on direct appeal, so no ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Hudson, 2025 Del. Super. LEXIS 219 (Apr. 30, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Carpenter creates no protection for ISP subscriber information. No Due Process rights were violated though a \u00a7 1509 summons. United States v. Meyrand, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84060 (E.D. Mo. May 2, 2025).* This court declined to abandon the automobile &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=60958\">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":[36,126,67,76,79],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60958","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-automobile-exception","category-issue-preclusion","category-rule-41g-return-of-property","category-surveillance-technology","category-third-party-doctrine"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60958","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=60958"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60958\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":60970,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60958\/revisions\/60970"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=60958"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=60958"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=60958"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}