Epstein Secrets

led to a special categorical protection of the Fourth Amendment."); Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27. 41, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (explaining that Fourth Amendment exceptions and distinctions based solely on a type of technology are "unwise[ ] and inconsisten

icion is not needed for customs officials to search a laptop or other personal electronic storage devices at the border," Arnold, 533 F.3d at 1008, the Ninth Circuit stands alone, as it so often does. The majority likens the search of Cotterman's laptop to a "computer strip search," Majority at 966, and proceed

United States v. Southland Corp., 760 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1985) 15 United States v. Stein, 424 F. Supp. 2d 720 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) 21 United States v. Stevens, 985 F.2d 1175 (2d Cir. 1993) 9, 12 United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997) 12 United States v. Undenvood, No. 04 Cr. 424 (RWS), 200

oyees who have at other times also allegedly falsified records. The cases Thomas cites do not support a contrary result. In United States v. Biyan, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the government could not limit its discovery obligations to documents located in the district of prosecution since the case came out

United States v. Southland Corp., 760 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1985) 15 United States v. Stein, 424 F. Supp. 2d 720 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) 21 United States v. Stevens, 985 F.2d 1175 (2d Cir. 1993) 9, 12 United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997) 12 United States v. Underwood, No. 04 Cr. 424 (RWS), 200

oyees who have at other times also allegedly falsified records. The cases Thomas cites do not support a contrary result. In United States v. Bryan, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the government could not limit its discovery obligations to documents located in the district of prosecution since the case came out