Epstein Secrets

ng domestic drug interdiction checkpoints "does not affect the validity of border searches or searches at places like airports"): United States v. Ross. 456 U.S. 798. 823. 102 &Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982) (explaining that while the Fourth Amendment gives protection to containers in domestic ve

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

including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adrian Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova." It is only

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.");

understood as a venue provision than a jurisdictional provision—it specifies in which "court of appeals" a victim should file. Cf. United States v. Ross. 963 F.3d 1056. 1063 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (noting "the Supreme Court's directive that courts should avoid 'jurisdictionalizing' issues" that a

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