Epstein Secrets

istent with how our circuit and others have articulated the doctrine. See, e.g., United States v. Villasenor. 608 F.3d 467. 471-72 (9th Cir.2010); United Stales v. Yang, 286 F.3d 940.945-46 (7th Cir.2002); United States v. Hyde, 37 F.3d 116. 120 n. 2 (3d Cit 1994); United States v. Santiago, 837 F.2d 1545.

010). Reasonable suspicion is required precisely because the individual has regained an expectation of privacy by moving away from the border. See United Slates v. Villasenor. 608 F.3d 467.471-72 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, —U.S., 131 S.Ct. 547. 178 L.Ed.2d 401 (2010); United States v. Whiting. 781 F.2d 692.

bing a functional border search and those describing an extended border search, not in defining the standard for a search at the border. See, e.g., United States v. Cardona, 769 F.2d 625, 628 (9th Cir.1985) ("We have recently recognized the difficulty of making sharp distinctions between searches at the func

he Court has expressed support for the deterrence value of suspicionless searches of a routine nature, such as vehicle checkpoints near the border. See United States v. Maninez— Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 556, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976) ("We note here only the substantiality of the public interest in the p

ness of a search or seizure depends on the totality of the circumstances, including the scope and duration of the deprivation. See United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 124, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984); see also United States v. Duncan, 693 F.2d 971, 977 (9th Cir.1982). In view of these pri

rant and receipt for the person or property property seized and promptly return this warrant to the 3 — I Date and Time Issued LINNEA R. JOHNSON United States Ma istrate Name and Title of Judicial Of er 1 9 -2. 7-r (Dete) e person or property specified, serving this warrant .Bat any time in the day or ni

OF FLORIDA 08-8067-LRJ IN RE: SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION / ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES' MOTION TO SEAL This matter comes before the Court upon the United States' Motion to Seal the documents related to its Search Warrant Application. The Court being fully apprised in the premises, orders that the motion is h

by GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers, in West Palm Beach, Florida, this 7 day of March, 2008. LINNEA R. JOHNSO 'fr-vi ---- ifirrYt fr. UNITED STATE AGISTRATE JUDGE EFTA00224615 (Rt-T.062005)Sicakd Docunarot Tracking Form UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Southern District of Florida Number: 08-

his application would expand that review and, accordingly, your Affiant requests the issuance of a search warrant in accordance with United States' Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 115-21 (1984). 23. As explained above, Epstein instructed one of his assistants to photograph C using a digital camera; M reported

is hereby GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers, in West Palm Beach, Florida, this / 7 day of March, 2008. cc: AUSA Cl y ." LINNEA R. JOHNS° UNITED STATE AGISTRATE JUDGE M ind to be " In1P ant tree% top n tncnment on tile i rt Steven M anmore k, ts. 0ic.tnct South ay 13e.wity uterk EFTA

al Bureau of Investigation FLORIDA SEARCH WARRANT CASE NUMBER 08-8067-LRJ TO: ■ FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION , and any Authorized Officer of the United States: Affidavit(s) having been made before me by E. who has reason to ant believe that Ei on the person of or E on the premises known as (name, desc

:iarb_at city and State PALM BEACH, FLORIDA Date and Time Issued Certified I. be trha awl LINNEA R. JOHNSON correct copy of te (foment on fits Steven United States Magistrate Judge k, Name and Title of Judicial Officer '' <)iii artmore, ut :(; pc (Oa Sig EFTA00186591 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN

s application would expand that review and, accordingly, your Affiant requests the issuance of a search warrant in accordance with United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 115-21 (1984). 23. As explained above, Epstein instructed one of his assistants to photograph Musing a digital camera; Illeported E

ders that the motion is hereby GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers, in West Palm Beach, Florida, this / 7 day of March, 2008. cc: A R. JOHNSON UNITED STATES M ISTRATE JUDGE AUSA Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-000641 EFTA00228021 (Re. OtCC05).Sealed DoLurnem Track:nit Form UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT S

CT OF FLORIDA 08-8067-LRJ IN RE: SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES' MOTION TO SEAL This matter comes before the Court upon the United States' Motion to Seal the documents related to its Search Warrant Application. The Court being hilly apprised in the premises, orders that the motion is h

s application would expand that review and, accordingly, your Affiant requests the issuance of a search warrant in accordance with United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 115-21 (1984). 23. As explained above, Epstein instructed one of his assistants to photograph C using a digital camera; M reported

his application would expand that review and, accordingly, your Affiant requests the issuance of a search warrant in accordance with United States' Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 115-21 (1984). 23. As explained above, Epstein instructed one of his assistants to photograph C using a digital camera; M reported

s apply the rule that a test which does nothing more than indicate the presence or absence of contraband does not implicate the Fourth Amendment. In United Slates'. Thomas 757 F.2d 1359 (2d. Cir. 1985), the Second Circuit rejected a broad application of this rule. In particular, it held that a dog sniff outside

ant to describe the forensic methodology that would be used in the subsequent examination of the seized media. A similar conclusion was reached in United States'. Brooks, 427 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 2005). Brooks and other courts have observed that the discretion of the forensic examiner is best circumscribed b

alysis In Jacobsen, hash set matching for child pornography reveals only whether data is child pornography, "and no other arguably 'private' fact." Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 123. Therefore, it "compromises no legitimate privacy interest." Id. Nevertheless, there is substantial reason for caution in performi

set matching for child pornography is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, following the Supreme Court's analysis In Jacobsen, hash set matching for child pornography reveals only whether data is child pornography, "and no other arguably 'private' fact." Jacobsen, 466 U.S.

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA IN RE: SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES' MOTION TO SEAL This matter comes before the Court upon the United States' Motion to Seal the documents related to its Search Warrant Application. The Court being fully apprised in the premises, orders that the motion is h

davit in support of an application by the United States of America for issuance of a warrant to search and seize evidence of violations of Title 18, United States Cod; Sections 371, 1591, 2252, 2252A, 2422, and 2423; instrumentalities of such violations; and any fruits of those crimes located within electronic me

s application would expand that review and, accordingly, your Affiant requests the issuance of a search warrant in accordance with United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 115-21 (1984). 23. As explained above, Epstein instructed one of his assistants to photograph C using a digital camera; M reported

marked 3608128AW4801CF53 - in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Investigation • TO: FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION any AuthoritedOfficer of the United States: SEARCH WARRANT CASE NUMBER 08.8067•LRJ • • ; ,• Affidavit(s) having been made before me by who has reason to ant . • • . . . . believe

t of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation File No. 31E—MM-1080 62 & 188B-MM-1052 07—D 25 August 2008 Federal Agent Australian Federal Police Americas, Europe and Middle East Desk Canberra, ACT, Australina Dear Federal Agent MI, The Miami Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) requ

s application would expand that review and, accordingly, your Affiant requests the issuance of a search warrant in accordance with United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 115-21 (1984). 23. As explained above, Epstein instructed one of his assistants to photograph, using a digital camera,. reported Ep

Rule 45(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2."Fees and mileage need not be tendered to the witness upon service of a subpoena issued on behalf of the United States or an officer or agency thereof (Rule 45(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 17(d), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure) or on behalf of cert

ect until you arc granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting on behalf of the court. This subpoena is issued upon application of the United Slates of America Name, Address and Phone Number of Assistant U.S. Attorney Australian Avenue, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6235 Tel Fax •If not appbcabk. ama 'none

s application would expand that review and, accordingly, your Affiant requests the issuance of a search warrant in accordance with United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 115-21 (1984). 23. As explained above, Epstein instructed one of his assistants to photograph C using a digital camera; M reported

OF FLORIDA 08-8068-LRJ IN RE: SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION / ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES' MOTION TO SEAL This matter comes before the Court upon the United States' Motion to Seal the documents related to its Search Warrant Application. The Court being fully apprised in the premises, orders that the motion is h

his application would expand that review and, accordingly, your Affiant requests the issuance of a search warrant in accordance with United States' Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 115-21 (1984). 23. As explained above, Epstein instructed one of his assistants to photograph' using a digital camera;, reported Ep

CT OF FLORIDA 08-8068-LRJ IN RE: SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES' MOTION TO SEAL This matter comes before the Court upon the United States' Motion to Seal the documents related to its Search Warrant Application. The Court being fully apprised in the premises, orders that the motion is h

s application would expand that review and, accordingly, your Affiant requests the issuance of a search warrant in accordance with United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 115-21 (1984). 23. As explained above, Epstein instructed one of his assistants to photograph C using a digital camera; M reported