Back to Network
4
Shared Docs
3
Same-Page
4 / 4
Mentions
Document Mentions (4 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
arpenter v. United States would have come out differently, since the defendant's historical cell-site location information was in the possession of MetroPCS and Sprint. 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2212 (2018). But the United States Supreme Court rejected application of the third-party doctrine for two reasons, as t
(1984) 5 United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 12 United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) 10 United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 5, 6, 7 United States v. Taylor, 745 F.3d 15 (2d Cir. 2014) 12 US Bank Nat. Ass 'n v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., No. 12
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
arpenter v. United States would have come out differently, since the defendant's historical cell-site location information was in the possession of MetroPCS and Sprint. 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2212 (2018). But the United States Supreme Court rejected application of the third-party doctrine for two reasons, as t
(1984) 5 United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 12 United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) 10 United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 5, 6, 7 United States v. Taylor, 745 F.3d 15 (2d Cir. 2014) 12 US Bank Nat. Ass 'n v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., No. 12
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
arpenter v. United States would have come out differently, since the defendant's historical cell-site location information was in the possession of MetroPCS and Sprint. 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2212 (2018). But the United States Supreme Court rejected application of the third-party doctrine for two reasons, as t
(1984) 5 United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 12 United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) 10 United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 5, 6, 7 United States v. Taylor, 745 F.3d 15 (2d Cir. 2014) 12 US Bank Nat. Ass 'n v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., No. 12
Sponsored
2 mentions
Page EFTA00018999
(1984) 5 United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 12 United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) 10 United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 5, 6, 7 United States v. Taylor, 745 F.3d 15 (2d Cir. 2014) 12 US Bank Nat. Ass 'n v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., No. 12
Page: EFTA00018999 →Page EFTA00019003
arpenter v. United States would have come out differently, since the defendant's historical cell-site location information was in the possession of MetroPCS and Sprint. 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2212 (2018). But the United States Supreme Court rejected application of the third-party doctrine for two reasons, as t
Page: EFTA00019003 →Sponsored
Mutual Connections (67)
Entities connected to both MetroPCS and Stokes
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSON6 w/ MetroPCS·37 w/ Stokes
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON13 w/ MetroPCS·21 w/ Stokes
United States
LOCATION6 w/ MetroPCS·27 w/ Stokes
George W. Bush
PERSON2 w/ MetroPCS·26 w/ Stokes
Condoleezza Rice
PERSON2 w/ MetroPCS·24 w/ Stokes
DB
Doug Band
PERSON2 w/ MetroPCS·24 w/ Stokes
MF
Maria Farmer
PERSON2 w/ MetroPCS·22 w/ Stokes
Julie K. Brown
PERSON3 w/ MetroPCS·21 w/ Stokes
Stephen Hawking
PERSON5 w/ MetroPCS·17 w/ Stokes
Virginia Giuffre
PERSON9 w/ MetroPCS·13 w/ Stokes
Oregon
LOCATION6 w/ MetroPCS·14 w/ Stokes
Carpenter
PERSON5 w/ MetroPCS·14 w/ Stokes
Heath
PERSON4 w/ MetroPCS·14 w/ Stokes
CM
Colleen McMahon
PERSON4 w/ MetroPCS·14 w/ Stokes
SW
Sweet
PERSON4 w/ MetroPCS·14 w/ Stokes
David Boies
PERSON4 w/ MetroPCS·14 w/ Stokes
Mao Zedong
PERSON2 w/ MetroPCS·15 w/ Stokes
the Southern District
LOCATION3 w/ MetroPCS·14 w/ Stokes
ET
Emmy Taylor
PERSON4 w/ MetroPCS·12 w/ Stokes
Prince Andrew
PERSON3 w/ MetroPCS·13 w/ Stokes