Epstein Secrets

[3] [4] We review de novo the ultimate question of whether a warrantless search *960 was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Johnson, 256 F.3d 895, 905 (9th Cir.200 I ) (en banc). Our review necessarily encompasses a determination as to the applicable standard: no suspicion, rea

ng electronic from non-electronic devices— of the *978 sort the Supreme Court has made clear has no place in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39, 1 l7 S.Ct. 417, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996)—is arbitrary; there is no reason someone carrying a laptop should receive greater privacy

interpret subsection (a)(8)'s general right to fair treatment by reference to the subsections (and their constituent rights) that precede it. See, Johnson it United States,559 U.S. 133, 139,130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010) ("Ultimately, context determines meaning ...."); Pi Gutierrez v. Ada, 528

24-25, 157 L.Ed.2d 343 (2003) (for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, the execution of a warrant is subject to a reasonableness standard); Ohio v. Robinette 519 U.S. 33, 39, 117 S. Ct. 417, 421, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996) ("We have long held that the 'touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.");

e in the overall statutory scheme." (quoting ! I Davis v. Mich. Dep't of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809, 109 S.Ct. 1500, 103 L.Ed.2d 891 (1989))); P ° Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 139, 130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d I (2010) ("Ultimately, context determines *1297 meaning."). Specifically, subsect

dment's Confrontation Clause, the "lengths to which the prosecution must go to produce a witness" is a "question of reasonableness"); ? II Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39, 117 S.Ct. 417, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996) ("We have long held that the 'touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.' "); 3