However, there is a historical skepticism: Ellen M. Kirsh, David W. Phillips, and Donna E. McIntyre, “Recommendations for the Evolution of Cyberlaw,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2 (September 1996). Available at: http://www.egov.ufsc.br:8080/portal/sites/default/files/anexos/2632-2626-1-PB.html.
“If men were angels”: James Madison, The Federalist 10 and 51 (1787–1788). Available at: https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=10&page=transcript.
Chapter One
His boss, Burton Marks: Author’s interview with Harvey Schneider, April 17, 2017.
“If you’re caught in the middle”: Ibid.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: “Earl Warren,” Oyez. Available at: https://www.oyez.org/justices/earl_warren.
“Number 35, Charles Katz”: Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/389/347/case.html.
“The tape was placed”: Schneider told the author during a phone call on August 11, 2017, that during Katz oral arguments, rather than “read their homework,” he meant to say “done their homework,” and rather than “the area of the telephone booth,” he meant to say the “airspace of the telephone booth.”
Government overreach was: “Writ of Assistance,” Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance.
“every one with this writ may be a tyrant”: James Otis, “Against Writs of Assistance,” Superior Court of Massachussets, February 24, 1761. Available at: http://www.constitution.org/bor/otis_against_writs.htm.
But in the nineteenth century: H. Lee Van Boven, “Electronic Surveillance in California: A Study in State Legislative Control,” California Law Review 57 (1969), pp. 1182. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3759963-Electronic-Surveillance-in-California-a-Study-in.html#document/p9/a355569.
And in 1928, the: Richard F. Hamm, “Olmstead v. United States: The Constitutional Challenges of Prohibition Enforcement,” Federal Trials and Great Debates in US History (Federal Judicial Center, Federal Judicial History Office, 2010). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3727803-Olmstead.html#document/p13/a361375.
Ultimately, the court found: By that point, the telephone had been around for decades—but it wasn’t until the following year, 1929, that President Herbert Hoover had one installed in the White House.
Writing for the majority opinion: Chief Justice Taft (1921–1930) had also served as president of the United States (1909–1913), the only person to ever hold both positions.
“The [Fourth] Amendment”: Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928). Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/277/438#writing-USSC_CR_0277_0438_ZO.
The Katz case originated: United States v. The Premises Known as Room 123-8400 Sunset Blvd, Sunset Towers West, Los Angeles, California, A. O. 98 Search Warrant, Doc. no. 42, Case no. 129 (S.D. Cal., 1965). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3475712-Katz-Search-Warrant-Unsigned.html#document/p2/a354479.
Nearly every day, agents: The Olmstead and Katz cases had another link, too: Mabel Walker Willebrandt’s law partner, Fred Horowitz, funded the construction of the Chateau Marmont, which opened in 1929.
“Some of these telephone calls”: United State v. Charles Katz, No. 34715-CD (S.D. Cal., 1965). https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3523334-34715-Transcripts.html#document/p10/a354463.
Katz, it turned out: Ibid. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3523334-34715-Transcripts.html#document/p38/a354466.
He’d been doing it: Ibid. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3523334-34715-Transcripts.html#document/p214/a354475.
After establishing a pattern: Ibid. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3523334-34715-Transcripts.html#document/p141/a354474.
“OUT OF ORDER”: David Sklansky “Katz v. United States: The Limits of Aphorism,” Criminal Procedure Stories (Foundation Press, 2006) p. 225.
The FBI and the LAPD: United State v. Charles Katz, No. 34715-CD. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3523334-34715-Transcripts.html#document/p18/a354481.
“We felt in LA”: Author’s interview with Joseph Gunn, February 27, 2017.
Gunn was well aware: People v. Canard, No. 11448. (Cal. App. 2d, 1967). Available at: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2d/257/444.html.
In the end, two LAPD officers: Matt Lait, “Police Panel Selects Mayoral Aide,” Los Angeles Times, July 10, 1998. Available at: http://articles.latimes.com/1998/jul/10/local/me-2385.
The two microphones: United State v. Charles Katz, No. 34715-CD. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3523334-34715-Transcripts.html#document/p147/a354483.
In addition, agents also: Author’s interview with Joseph Gunn, February 27, 2017.
After recording Katz’: “FBI Arrests Man Here for Betting on Cage Contests,” Los Angeles Times, Sept. 26, 1967 Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3922216-155115244-1.html.
Armed with a warrant: United States v. The Premises (S.D. Cal., 1965). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3475712-Katz-Search-Warrant-Unsigned.html.
It was during Katz’ two-day: United State v. Charles Katz, No. 34715-CD. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3523334-34715-Transcripts.html#document/p65/a345436.
“I think that Olmstead”: Bob Egelko, “Retired Judge Jesse Curtis Jr. Dies at 102,” San Francisco Chronicle, August 8, 2008.
For example, on December 1, 1907: “Rights of Privacy Includes Telephone,” The New York Times, December 1, 1907. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3727732-106769814.html.
In the nineteenth century: Jason Fagone, The Woman Who Smashed Codes (Dey Street Books, 2017).
Of course, this case: Major J. Andrew White, Military Signal Corp Manual (Wireless Press, 1918).
In 1931, no less: William Grigg, “The Wire-Tapping Controversy: A Symptom of the Times,” Duke Bar Journal 4, no. 2 (Summer 1954). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3727902-The-Wire-Tapping-Controversy-a-Symptom-of-the.html#document/p6/a354508.
In 1932, a federal judge: Associate Press, “Judge Denounces Tapping of Wires,” The New York Times, December 3, 1932. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3727688-105891871.html.
Two years later: Communications Act of 1934, Pub.L. 73-416, 48 Stat. 1064. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3727664-41786769082578.html#document/p121/a354487.
However, federal agencies: Hearings Before the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate, 94th Cong. 1, Vol. 5: National Security Agency and Fourth Amendment Rights, October 29 and November 6, 1975, p. 88. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3766735-94intelligence-Activities-V.html#document/p90/a356388.
The first of those cases: Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129 (1942).
Nearly two decades later: Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (1961).
Many, including the American Civil Liberties Union: Associated Press, “Wiretap Bill Hit as Freedom Peril,” The New York Times, April 5, 1962. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3727648-96964864.html.
In a June 1962: Robert F. Kennedy, “Attorney General’s Opinion on Wiretaps,” The New York Times, June 3, 1962. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3727574-83495803.html.
By January 1967: Lyndon Johnson, “Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union,” American Presidency Project, January 10, 1967. Available at: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=28338.
At the time, nine states: Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (196
7). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/41/case.html.
“If anything, the latter”: Ibid.
“They thought they had a Goldman”: Author’s interview with Harvey Schneider, April 17, 2017.
“The test really asks”: Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
Brennan’s comment: Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924).
“We think Hester is wrong”: Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
Then, it was the: “John S. Martin Jr.” Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Martin_Jr..
Martin called Schneider’s: Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
“[Fortas] didn’t draw”: Author’s interview with Laurence Tribe, May 11, 2017.
At the age of 26: Laurence H. Tribe, “The Constitution in Cyberspace,” Keynote Address, First Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy, Burlingham, CA, 1991. Available at: http://www.sjgames.com/SS/tribe.html.
Plus, it was Justice Stewart: Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
“I had a little bit more spunk”: Author’s interview with Laurence Tribe, May 11, 2017.
“Dragon Lady” was: Graeme Zielinski, “Margaret McHugh Dies,” The Washington Post, April 4, 2002. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2002/04/04/margaret-mchugh-dies/e3fb2813-3201-4e0a-8cb5-c770c6c7bb46/?utm_term=.de484ee4ab7e.
“Don’t make a nuisance”: Peter Winn, “Katz and the Origins of the Reasonable Expectations of Privacy Test,” McGeorge Law Review 40, Issue 1 (2016), p. 2. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3475720-05-Winn-Master1MLR40.html#document/p2/a355568.
A few days later: Abe Fortas to Potter Stewart, “Re: No. 35—Katz v. U.S.,” Brennan Papers, November 30, 1967. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3761752-Ms-0858-s01-b057-f1179.html#document/p12/a355956.
Even Chief Justice Warren: Earl Warren to Stewart Potter, “Re: No. 35—Katz v. U.S.,” Brennan Papers, November 20, 1967. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3761752-Ms-0858-s01-b057-f1179.html#document/p6/a355955.
“For the Fourth Amendment”: Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
Indeed, since then: Christopher Slobogin and Joseph E. Schumacher, “Reasonable Expectations of Privacy and Autonomy in Fourth Amendment Cases: An Empirical Look at ‘Understandings Recognized and Permitted by the Public,’ ” Duke Law Journal 42, no. 4 (February 1993). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3759949-Reasonable-Expectations-of-Privacy-and-Autonomy.html.
Katz’ impact was immediately: Gene Blake, “What Can and Can’t Be Done: L.A. Police Get Directive on New ‘Bugging’ Rules,” Los Angeles Times, February 1, 1968. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3922218-155831913-1.html#document/p1/a367718.
At a federal level, however: The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 106. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3728666-42.html#document/p106/a355595.
Congress largely incorporated: Pub.L. 90-351, 82 Stat. 197, enacted June 19, 1968, codified at 34 U.S.C. § 10101 et seq. Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/topn/omnibus_crime_control_and_safe_streets_act_of_1968.
The law also included: Title III of The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub. L. 90-351; 6/19/68, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-22. Available at: https://it.ojp.gov/PrivacyLiberty/authorities/statutes/1284.
only as part of a super-warrant: “Procedure for Interception of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications,” 18 U.S. Code § 2518. Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2518.
Further, the federal judge: “Title III Procedures: Attachment C,” Office of the United States Attorney, US Department of Justice, December 2008. Available at: https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-92-title-iii-procedures-attachment-c.
But even at the time: Lyndon Johnson, “Statement by the President Upon Signing the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,” American Presidency Project, June 19, 1968. Available at: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=28939.
There are some more: California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988).
Taken one step further: United States v. Scott, 975 F.2d 927 (1st Cir., 1992).
Does a criminal have: United States v. Caymen, 404 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir., 2005). Available at: http://www.leagle.com/decision/20051600404F3d1196_11483/U.S. v. CAYMEN.
Does a burglar who: Cyrus Farivar, “Crook Who Left His Phone at the Scene Has ‘No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy,’ ” Ars Technica, June 23, 2016. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/crook-who-left-his-phone-at-the-scene-has-no-reasonable-expectation-of-privacy/.
More recently, a federal: United States v. Brian Farrell, NO. CR15-029RAJ (W.D. Wash. 2016). Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2719591-Farrell-Weds.html#document/p3/a279648.
After all, there’s not: https://www.wilmerhale.com/louis_cohen/.
“The rule that we are creating”: Author’s interview with Louis Cohen, May 24, 2017.
Chapter Two
From the beginning: United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977).
It was something of a chilly: Author’s interview with Ted Boutrous, May 2, 2017.
He was expecting a call: Apple did not make Krall, or any of its own lawyers, available for an interview.
She wanted to speak with: Author’s interview with Ted Boutrous, May 2, 2017.
Krall joined Apple in March: Katie Marsal, “Apple’s Chief Counsel Profiled as ‘Field Marshal’ in Fight Against Android,” Apple Insider, September 10, 2012. Available at: http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/09/10/apples_chief_counsel_profiled_as_field_marshal_in_fight_against_android.
On that Tuesday, February 16, 2016: UNITED STATES V. IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF AN APPLE IPHONE, GOVERNMENT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION, ED NO. 15-0451M, February 16, 2016. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2714000-SB-Shooter-MOTION-Seeking-Asst-iPhone.html#document/p14/a278095.
US Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym: UNITED STATES V. IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF AN APPLE IPHONE, ORDER COMPELLING APPLE, ED NO. 15-0451M, February 16, 2016. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001-SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.html.
“It was extraordinary and unheard of”: Author’s interview with Ted Boutrous, May 2, 2017.
“We indicated that we thought”: Author’s interview with Ted Boutrous, June 27, 2017.
Although he was born in Los Angeles: Josh Beser, “Ted Boutrous on the Trump Admin, the First Amendment, And Why Now Is Such an Exciting Time for Journalism,” JDSupra, March 31, 2017. Available at: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ted-boutros-on-the-trump-admin-the-26536/.
According to a 2007 profile: Abigail Goldman, “He’s a Hired Gun of the Highest Caliber,” Los Angeles Times, June 24, 2007. Available at: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/24/business/fi-sunprofile24
“Being able to have both a job”: Josh Beser, “Ted Boutrous on the Trump Admin, the First Amendment, And Why Now Is Such an Exciting Time for Journalism,” JDSupra, March 31, 2017. Available at: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ted-boutros-on-the-trump-admin-the-26536/.
Noted conservative attorney: https://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyer/olson-theodore-b/.
Boutrous is probably most famous: Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011).
Dukes won at the 9th US Circuit: David Kravets, “Court Says Wal-Mart Must Face Bias Trial,” Associated Press, February 6, 2007. Available at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-ap-wal-mart-discrimination-story.html.
More recently, Boutrous: Cyrus Farivar, “Startup W
orkers Sue to Be Recognized As Employees, Not Mere Contractors,” Ars Technica, March 26, 2013. Availabe at: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/startup-workers-sue-to-be-recognized-as-employees-not-mere-contractors/.
This case, along with dozens: Cyrus Farivar, “Judge Expresses Notable Concerns over Proposed $100M Settlement in Uber Case,” Ars Technica, June 2, 2016. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/most-drivers-in-uber-labor-case-would-get-under-25-so-some-protest-settlement/.
Within hours of the judge’s order: Eileen Decker, “Statement of United States Attorney Eileen M. Decker in Response to Court Order Directing Apple to Assist FBI in Accessing iPhone Used by Syed Rizwan Farook,” Department of Justice, February 16, 2016. Available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3863397-Sb-Shooter-Iphone-Access-Usa-Statement.html.
“We have made a solemn commitment”: Decker did not respond to repeated requests by the author for an interview.
On Twitter, Decker’s office: Andrew Blankstein, “Judge Forces Apple to Help Unlock San Bernardino Shooter iPhone,” NBC News, February 16, 2016. Available at: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/judge-forces-apple-help-unlock-san-bernardino-shooter-iphone-n519701.
Moreover, 77 percent: “Mobile Fact Sheet,” Pew Research Center, January 12, 2017. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/.
When the NSA’s Section 215: Cyrus Farivar, “Secret Court Declassifies Opinion Providing Rationale for Metadata Sharing,” Ars Technica, September 17, 2013. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/secret-court-declassifies-opinion-providing-rationale-for-metadata-sharing/.
“They were taking this very aggressive position” : Author’s interview with Ted Boutrous, May 2, 2017.
When the clock struck midnight: Sebastian Anthony, “Tim Cook Says Apple Will Fight US Gov’t Over Court-Ordered iPhone Backdoor,” Ars Technica, February 17, 2016. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/02/tim-cook-says-apple-will-fight-us-govt-over-court-ordered-iphone-backdoor/.
Habeas Data Page 31