United States v. Apple, Inc.
791 F.3d 290 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal appellate court may grant a rehearing en banc to have the full court of active judges reconsider a three-judge panel's decision when the case is deemed to be of exceptional importance or to secure uniformity in the court's decisions.
Facts:
- The U.S. government obtained a warrant to seize and create cloned copies of three computer hard drives.
- The hard drives contained both files that were responsive to the warrant and files that were not.
- The government retained the cloned copies of the hard drives for approximately two and a half years.
- After this period, the government searched the non-responsive files on the cloned drives pursuant to a new, subsequently issued warrant.
Procedural Posture:
- A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals issued a disposition in the case on June 17, 2014.
- Following the panel's disposition, an active judge of the court requested a poll on whether to rehear the case en banc.
- A majority of the court's active judges voted in favor of granting the rehearing en banc.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourth Amendment permit the government, acting under a warrant, to seize and clone computer hard drives, retain the cloned copies for over two years, and then search files on those drives that were non-responsive to the original warrant pursuant to a second, subsequently-issued warrant?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
This document is a procedural order and does not answer the legal issue presented. Instead of deciding the merits, the court, upon a majority vote of its active judges, orders that the case be reheard en banc. This order vacates the prior panel's opinion and sets a new briefing and oral argument schedule for the full court to consider the significant Fourth Amendment questions raised by the long-term retention and subsequent search of digital data.
Analysis:
This order to rehear the case en banc is procedurally significant, indicating a deep division or serious concern among the circuit's judges regarding the application of the Fourth Amendment to digital searches. By granting en banc review, the court signals that the issue of long-term government retention and subsequent searches of seized electronic data is of exceptional importance. The resulting decision is likely to establish a major precedent within the circuit, clarifying the constitutional limits on law enforcement's handling of vast amounts of electronically stored information.
