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

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

is a red herring. Also, the canon of constitutional avoidance does not apply here because the CVRA is plain and unambiguous. See United States v. Stevens 559 U.S. 460, 481, 130 S. Ct 1577, 1591-92, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) (providing that courts cannot "rely upon the canon of construction that 'ambigu

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.");

opinion invokes the canon of constitutional avoidance, it does not apply here because there is no ambiguity in the CVRA text. See United States v. Stevens. 559 U.S. 460, 481, 130 S. Ct. 1577. 1591-92. 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) (providing that courts cannot 'rely upon the canon of construction that 'ambig

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