Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Lavabit appeals brief

Lavabit appeals brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 141|Likes:
Published by IDG News Service

More info:

Published by: IDG News Service on Jan 14, 2014
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
See more
See less

05/19/2014

 
RECORD NO. 13-4625(L); 13-4626
 
Gibson
Moore Appellate Services, LLC 421 East Franklin Street
 Suite 230
 Richmond, VA 23219 804-249-7770
 www.gibsonmoore.net
In The
United States Court Of Appeals
For The Fourth Circuit
In re: UNDER SEAL,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
 Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LAVABIT, LLC.; LADAR LEVISON,
 Parties-in-Interest – Appellants.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA AT ALEXANDRIA
______________ REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS ______________
Jesse R. Binnall B
RONLEY
&
 
B
INNALL
, PLLC 10387 Main Street Suite 201 Fairfax, VA 22030 (703) 229-0335
 
Counsel for Parties in  Interest-Appellants
 Ian Samuel J
ONES
D
AY
 222 E. 41st Street New York, NY 10017 (212) 326-3808
Counsel for Parties in  Interest-Appellants
 Marcia Hofmann L
AW
O
FFICE OF
M
ARCIA
H
OFMANN
 25 Taylor Street San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 830-6664
Counsel for Parties in  Interest-Appellants
 David Warrington Laurin Mills L
E
C
LAIR
R
YAN
 2318 Mill Road Suite 1100 Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 647-5926
Counsel for Parties in  Interest-Appellants
 
Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 53 Filed: 11/22/2013 Pg: 1 of 33
 
i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................. ii INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 I. The Pen Trap Order is invalid ......................................................................... 2  A. Lavabit did not waive its objection to the pen-trap order ............... 2 B. The Pen-Trap Order Commanded More Assistance Than the Statute Authorizes ........................................................................... 6 II. The Stored Communications Act Warrant Was Invalid ............................ 11  A. The warrant does not pertain to a subscriber .................................. 11 B. The warrant imposed an undue burden on Lavabit ....................... 15 C. The warrant did not target the fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime, as the Fourth Amendment requires .............. 19 D. The warrant permitted general rummaging through other subscribers’ communications ............................................................. 23 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 25 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE
Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 53 Filed: 11/22/2013 Pg: 2 of 33
 
ii
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) C
 ASES
 
Berger v. New York
, 388 U.S. 41 (1967) ............................................................................................................. 24
 
Browning-Ferris Indus. of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc.
, 492 U.S. 257 (1989) ............................................................................................................. 3
Chandler v. Miller 
, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) ........................................................................................................... 24
Corley v. United States 
, 556 U.S. 303 (2009) ........................................................................................................... 14
Council of Alternative Political Parties v. Hooks 
, 179 F.3d 64 (3d Cir. 1999).................................................................................................. 6
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Fernandez 
, 741 F.2d 355 (11th Cir. 1984) ............................................................................................ 6
Doe v. Broderick
, 225 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................................ 20
 Ex parte Republic of Peru 
, 318 U.S. 578 (1943) ............................................................................................................. 6
 Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker 
, 554 U.S. 471 (2008) ............................................................................................................. 5
Gilbane Bldg. Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond 
, 80 F.3d 895 (4th Cir. 1996) .............................................................................................. 12
Hill v. Braxton 
, 277 F.3d 701 (4th Cir. 2002) .............................................................................................. 6
In re Application of U.S. for an Order Authorizing Disclosure of Location Information 
, 849 F. Supp. 2d 526 (D. Md. 2011) ................................................................... 20, 21, 22
In re Applications 
, 509 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D. Mass. 2007) ............................................................................... 13
Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 53 Filed: 11/22/2013 Pg: 3 of 33

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->