United States v. Forrester
512 F.3d 500 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Government surveillance of a person's email to/from addresses, the IP addresses of websites they visit, and the total volume of their data transmission does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in this addressing information, which is voluntarily conveyed to a third-party Internet Service Provider.
Facts:
- Dennis Louis Alba was part of a large-scale Ecstasy-manufacturing operation.
- During the government's investigation into the operation, it employed computer surveillance techniques to monitor Alba's email and internet activity.
- The government used a 'mirror port' installed at the facility of Alba's Internet Service Provider, PacBell Internet.
- This technique allowed the government to learn the to/from addresses of Alba's e-mail messages.
- The surveillance also revealed the IP addresses of the websites that Alba visited.
- Finally, the technology captured the total volume of information sent to or from Alba's account.
- The surveillance did not capture the content of Alba's emails or the specific pages (URLs) he viewed on any websites.
Procedural Posture:
- The government applied for and received a court order authorizing the installation of a pen register analogue, a 'mirror port,' on Dennis Alba's internet account.
- Alba was indicted in the U.S. District Court on charges including conspiracy to manufacture and distribute Ecstasy.
- A jury trial was held, and Alba was convicted on all counts.
- Alba appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing among other things that the computer surveillance violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
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 government surveillance that captures the to/from addresses of a person's emails, the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses of websites they visit, and the total volume of data transmitted constitute a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Fisher, Circuit Judge
No. Government surveillance of email and internet addressing information does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. Applying the principles from Smith v. Maryland, which held that using a pen register to record dialed phone numbers is not a search, the court found no constitutionally significant difference in monitoring internet addressing information. The court reasoned that internet users, like telephone users, have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information they voluntarily turn over to third parties. To send an email or visit a website, a user must convey the addressing information (to/from addresses, IP addresses) to their Internet Service Provider (ISP) to direct the communication, thereby relinquishing any reasonable expectation of privacy in that information. The court distinguished this non-content 'addressing' data from the protected content of communications, analogizing it to the information on the outside of a sealed letter, which is visible to postal carriers and not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Analysis:
This decision extends the third-party doctrine established in cases like Smith v. Maryland from the analog world of telephone calls to the digital realm of the internet. By holding that internet metadata like IP addresses and email headers are not protected by the Fourth Amendment, the court set a significant precedent for the scope of government surveillance in the digital age. The ruling creates a crucial distinction between unprotected addressing information and protected content, which has become a central battleground in digital privacy law. This framework allows for warrantless government collection of vast amounts of data about who people communicate with and what parts of the internet they visit, significantly impacting the balance between law enforcement interests and individual privacy.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Forrester