Uploaded by ned.mcelvain

Defendant cheat sheet (1)

advertisement
Good afternoon Your Honor, my name is Jonathan Zima and I am here today to represent the
plaintiff Mr. Sam Winchester in his Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in
Violation of the Fourth Amendment pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3)(C)
of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
There are two main issues at hand in this case, first, is reasonable suspicion required for a nonroutine invasive search of an electronic device at the border? We will show you that yes it is
because “They contain the most intimate details of lives: financial
records, confidential business documents, medical records, and
private emails. This type of material implicates the Fourth
Amendment's specific guarantee of the people's right to be
secure in their papers.” United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d
952, 955 (9th Cir. 2013).
And second, the government had no reasonable suspicion in this case. The only potentially
suspicious fact about Mr. Winchester that could possibly justify reasonable suspicion, was his
placement on a watchlist from a single decade old charge, which apparently under Agent Meters
judgment, gave the government the individualized and particularized suspicion that is required
by the Fourth Amend, this one prior charge hardly seems like enough suspicion to justify a
highly intrusive warrantless search that has been around since the founding. Staleness doctrine
totality United states v wade (11th cir 2014)
Going back to my first point, Riley, 573 U.S. at 377. The Court found that
due to the unique nature of data that is generally stored on cell
phones, the defendant’s privacy concerns outweigh the government’s
interests. Id. The court also elaborated on the weakness of the
government’s interest, here the government argued that due to
remote wiping and danger to the investigators reasonable suspicion
should not be required when searching phones at the border. Id at
380. The court did not find this reasoning to be very persuasive
as they noted devices that protect phones from remote wiping are
relatively inexpensive and that a cell phone is not an immediately
dangerous threat to investigators. Id. Due to the greater strength
of Mr. Winchester’s privacy interest, the evidence must be
suppressed due to lack of reasonable suspicion.
And back to the second element, that the government possessed no reasonable individualized
suspicion against Mr. Cotter man, because the court must deem the government’s
search of Mr. Winchester’s cell phone as a non-routine and highly
invasive unconstitutional search. This is because, “A forensic
border search of a phone must be treated as non-routine,
permissible only on a showing of individualized suspicion.” United
States v. Kolsuz, 890 F.3d 133, 137 (4th. Cir. 2018). Winchester’s
phone was searched at the border. (Ex. B 37:40.) Therefore,
according to Kolsuz, the search must be deemed as non-routine.
Kolsuz, 890 F.3d at 139.
No reasonable suspicion is Touset v. United States in 2018. 11th circuit




guy arrested in airport in atlanta, had pattern modern to child pornography sites, no
reasonable suspicion at border required
no reasonable suspicion for cell phones because cell phone not unique no different than
basic personal property
compared cell phones to “tractor trailers full of documents”
more intrusive than search of your body, search of your mind
Kolsuz is 4th circuit in 2018




ruled yes reasonable suspicion Turkish guy arrested for weapons trafficking,
found gun parts in luggage
month long off site report done
had been stopped at the airport recently for weapons trafficking.
US v Cotterman 9th cir 2012

coming back from Mexico had appeared on TECS watchlist for child porn, 3 camera and
laptops with password protected files. Held laptop for 5 days. Government did rule
reasonable suspicion and had it in this case.
US v Motoya Hernandez USC 1985
 no reasonable suspicion required at border
 balloon swallower
US v Flores/Montano USC 2004
 vehicle search at Mexico border
 reasonable suspicion not required for vehicle search at border
 cars different than phones, easier to hide dangerous contraband
Riley v California USC 2014
 not at border, reasonable suspicion is required to search cell phones even during the
course of an arrest, can look at physical aspect to make sure phone is not a weapon
 faraday bags, remote wiping
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to
be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Conclusion: Cotterman quoting Scalia
Download
Related flashcards
Rhodes Scholars

33 Cards

Public finance

17 Cards

Posse schools

11 Cards

Create flashcards