Electronic Information in

Criminal Investigations &

Presented by the
American Bar Association
and
ABACLE
American Bar Association
ABACLE
321 North Clark Street, Suite 2000
Chicago, IL 60654-7598
www.americanbar.org
800.285.2221

Submit a Question
Visit
https://americanbar.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_2uB91twXeymw6FL&pCode=CE1907FSL3
to submit a question on the content of this course to program faculty. We’ll route your
question to a faculty member or qualified commentator in 2 business days.

The materials contained herein represent the opinions of the authors and editors and should not
be construed to be the action of the American Bar Association or ABACLE unless adopted
pursuant to the bylaws of the Association.

Nothing contained in this book is to be considered as the rendering of legal advice for specific
cases, and readers are responsible for obtaining such advice from their own legal counsel. This
book and any forms and agreements herein are intended for educational and informational
purposes only.

© 2019 American Bar Association. All rights reserved.

This publication accompanies the audio program entitled “Electronic Information in Criminal
Investigations & Proceedings” broadcast on July 8, 2019 (event code: CE1907FSL3).
 Electronic Information in Criminal
Investigations & Proceedings
Monday, July 8, 2019| 1:00-2:30 PM Eastern
Sponsored by: American Bar Association

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org 1
 ELECTRONIC INFORMATION IN CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATIONS & PROCEEDINGS

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
2
 The Panel
• Hon. James C. Francis IV, U.S.M.J. (ret’d),
[email protected]
• Emma M. Greenwood, Esq., Greenwood Law Group,
PLLC, New York NY, https://greenwoodlg.com/
• Ronald J. Hedges, Esq., Dentons US LLP, New York NY
(moderator), https://www.dentons.com/en/ronald-
hedges

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
3
 The Panel
• Elizabeth J. Roper, Esq., New York County District
Attorney’s Office, New York NY,
[email protected]
• Jay Shapiro, Esq., White and Williams LLP, New York,
NY, https://www.whiteandwilliams.com/lawyers-
JayShapiro.html

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
4
 Objectives
• Appreciate how the Fourth Amendment and State
constitutional principles apply to electronic information
• Understand how the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-
incrimination might apply to compelled disclosure of electronic
information
• Recognize how prosecutors and defense counsel might
cooperate in discovery and production of electronic
information
• Decribe how to introduce and challenge the introduction of
electronic information into evidence

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
5
 The Fourth Amendment
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967):
• Microphones on telephone booths
• Wires leading to wire recorders
• Search warrant for bookmaking records, etc.
How have times changed?

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
6
 The Fourth Amendment
United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012):

• Scalia (with Roberts, Kennedy and Thomas) =

• Alito (with Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan) = “The best

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
7
 The Fourth Amendment
• Sotomayor = Joins Scalia’s opinion, but notes that “it
may be necessary to reconsider the premise the
premise that an individual has no reasonable
expectation of privacy in information voluntarily
disclosed to third parties.”

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
8
 The Fourth Amendment
Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014):
• Unanimous decision by Roberts, C.J.
• “Although the data stored on a cell phone is
distinguished from physical records by quantity
alone, certain types of data are also qualitatively
different.”
• “Our answer to the question of what police must do
before searching a cell phone incident to an arrest is
accordingly simple – get a warrant.”
• “Exigent circumstances” remain available.

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
9
 The Fourth Amendment
Carpenter v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 2206 (2018):
• Roberts (with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and
Kagan) = acquisition of CSLI was a “search”
• Kennedy (with Thomas and Alito) = “This case
involves new technology, but the Court’s stark
departure from relevant Fourth Amendment
precedents and principles is, in my submission,
unnecessary and incorrect, requiring this respectful
dissent.”

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
10
 The Fourth Amendment

• Thomas = “By obtaining the cell-site records of

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
11
 The Fourth Amendment
• Alito (with Thomas) = “I share the Court’s concern
about the effect of new technology on personal
privacy, but I fear that today’s decision will do far
more harm than good. The Court’s reasoning
fractures two fundamental pillars of Fourth
Amendment law, and in doing so, it guarantees a
blizzard of litigation while threatening many
legitimate and valuable investigative practices upon
which law enforcement has rightfully come to rely.”

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
12
 The Fourth Amendment
• Gorsuch = “Yet the arguments have gone unmade,
leaving courts to the usual Katz hand-waving. These
omissions do not serve the development of a sound
or fully protective Fourth Amendment
jurisprudence.”

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
13
 The Fourth Amendment
• What are “reasonable expectations of privacy” after
Carpenter?
• United States v. Gavegnano, 305 Fed. Appx. 954
(4th Cir. 2019) (per curiam)
• People v. Diaz, 2019 NY Slip Op 01260 (Ct. App.
Feb. 21, 2019)
• What is the third-party doctrine after Carpenter?

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
14
 The Fourth Amendment
What has Massachusetts done?
• Commonwealth v. Estabrook, SJC-11833 (Mass. Sept.
28, 2015)
What has New York done?
• People v. Taylor, 158 A.D.3d 1095 (N.Y. 4th Dep’t
2018)
The challenge of new technology
• Commonwealth v. Almonor, SJC-12499 (Mass. Apr.
23, 2019)

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
15
 THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
The Particularity Requirement:
• In re Appeal of App. for Search Warrant, 2012 VT 102
(Sup. Ct. 2012), cert. denied, 569 U.S. ___ (2013) (ex
ante conditions)

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
16
 The Fourth Amendment
• United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing Inc.,
621 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc),
“recommended” ex ante conditions:

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
17
 The Fourth Amendment
o Government waive “plain view.”
o Independent personnel segregate nonresponsive
ESI.
o Applications and subpoenas disclose risk of
destruction.
o Search procedure be used to locate only
responsive ESI.
o Government destroys or returns nonresponsive
ESI.

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
18
 The Fourth Amendment
Federal courts disagree on the imposition of ex ante
conditions:
• I/M/O Matter of the Search of Premises Known as:
Three Hotmail Email Accounts, etc., No. 16-mj-8036,
2016 WL 1239916 (D. Kan. Mar. 28, 2016)
• United States v. Johnston, 789 F.3d 935 (9th Cir.),
cert. denied, No. 15-5642 (U.S. May 26, 2015)
• United States v. Brooks, No. 15-11015, 2016 WL
1534225 (11th Cir. Apr. 15, 2016) (per curiam)

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
19
 The Privilege Aainst Self-Incrimination
• Commonwealth v. Gelfgatt, 468 Mass. 512 (Sup. Jud.
Ct. 2014)
• Pollard v. Florida, No. 1D18-4572 (Fla. 1DCA June 20,
2019)
• In re Search of a Residence in Oakland, California,
354 F. Supp. 3d 1010 (N.D. Ca. 2019)

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
20
 Miscellaneous Topics
• Preservation and spoliation
• People v. Durant, 44 N.E.3d 173 (N.Y. 2015)
• Sixth Amendment right of confrontation
• People v. John, 52 N.E.3d 1114 (N.Y. 2016)

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
21
 • Sixth Amendment effective assistance of counsel
• People v. Carter, 2018 NY Slip Op 08745 (1st Dept.
App. Div. Dec. 20, 2018) (mem.)
• Conditions of probation
• United States v. Eaglin, Docket No. 17-1224-cr (2d
Cir. Jan. 11, 2019)
• Commonwealth v. Johnson, SJC-12483 (Mass.
Mar. 26, 2019)

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
22
 Cooperation Between Prosecution and Defense
Recommendations for Electronically Stored Information
(ESI) Discovery Production in Federal Criminal Cases
(JETWG: Feb. 2012):
• “Introduction to the Recommendations ***”
• “Recommendations ***”
• “Strategies and Commentary ***”
• “ESI Discovery Production Checklist”

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
23
 Admissibility
The “hurdles” to admissibility:
1. Is it relevant?
2. Is it authenticated?
3. Is it hearsay?
4. Is it an original?
5. Is there undue prejudice?

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
24
 Admissibility
Fed. R. Evid. 902:
“The following items of evidence are self-
authenticating; they require no extrinsic evidence of
authenticity in order to be admitted: ***
(13) Certified Records Generated by an Electronic
Process or System. A record generated by an electronic
process or system that produces an accurate result, as
shown by a certification of a qualified person that
complies with the certification requirements of Rule
902(11) or (12). The proponent must also meet the
notice requirements of Rule 902(11).

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
25
 Admissibility
• (14) Certified Data Copied from an Electronic Device,
Storage Medium, or File. Data copied from an
electronic device, storage medium, or file, if
authenticated by a process of digital identification,
as shown by a certification of a qualified person that
complies with the certification requirements of Rule
902(11) or (12). The proponent also must meet the
notice requirements of Rule 902(11).”

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
26
 Admissibility
State v. Hannah, 448 N.J. Super. 78 (App. Div. 2016):
“We need not create a new test for social media
postings. Defendant argues a tweet can be easily
forged, but so can any letter or any other kind of
writing. The simple fact that a tweet is created on the
Internet does not set it apart from other writings.
Accordingly, we apply our traditional rules of
authentication under N.J.R.E. 901.”
“Authenticity can be established by direct proof – such
as testimony by the author admitting authenticity – but
direct proof is not required.”

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
27
 Summary

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
28
 For More Information
• S. Broderick, et al., Criminal e-Discovery: A Pocket
Guide for Judges (FJC: Nov. 25, 2015),
https://www.fjc.gov/content/309106/criminal-e-
discovery-pocket-guide-judges
• “ESI Protocol” (Defender Services Office Training
Division: undated), https://www.fd.org/litigation-
support/Joint-Electronic-Technology-Working-
Group/esi-protocol

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
29
 For More Information
• R.J. Hedges, ed., Electronic Evidence in Criminal
Investigations and Actions: Representative Court
Decisions and Supplementary Materials (Dec. 2017),
https://www.mass.gov/service-
details/understanding-electronic-information-in-
criminal-investigations-and-actions
• “Digital Evidence for First Responders”
(Massachusetts Digital Evidence Consortium: May
2015), http://www.iacpcybercenter.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/04/digitalevidence-booklet-
051215.pdf

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
30
 For More Information
• J. Shapiro, “United States v. Carpenter: Has the
Supreme Court Learned from the N.Y. Court of
Appeals on the Subject of Reasonable Expectation of
Privacy?” New York Crim. Law Newsletter 23 (NYSBA:
Summer 2018)

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
31
 For More Information
• Magistrate Judges Executive Board United States
Courts for the Ninth Circuit, “Carpe Data: A Guide for
Ninth Circuit Magistrate Judges When Reviewing
Government Applications to Obtain Electronic
Information” (third ed. July 2017),
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/district/guides/MJEB
_guide.pdf

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
32
 Questions

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
33
 THANK YOU!

www.americanbar.org | www.abacle.org
34