-~-·
c·
1
Stephen
G.
Larson ($BN: 145225)
s
arson @,larsonobrienlaw.com
2
Je~
A.
13ehnke
(SBN:
180462)_
jbehnke w,larsonobrienlaw.
com
3
Steven
A.11askins
(SBN:
238865)
shaskins @,larsonobrienlaw.com
4
Melissa
A.1Vleister
(SBN:
2967
44)
mmeister ci),larsonobrienlaw.com
s
LARSON O'BRIEN LLP
555
S.
Flower
Street, Suite 4400
6
Los
Angeles,
CA
90071
·
Telephone: (213)
436-4888
7.
Jacsiniile:
(213) 623-2000
~
s:: ~t.:
~
0§
~-:A_itom¢ys
for
AMICUS CURIAE
::;:
~~G;CLAYBORN
JAMES GODOY,
C .9
0riiil,
HOUSER, TINA
:MEINS,
MARK
)o
~_:~~pFUR
AND ROBERT VELASCO .
·:-:cJ~~
,·
:L::
: r~~
;~;~
C
~
.
r.c::
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
~;
z ~:~
~:~~
CENTRAL DISTRICT
OF
CALIFORNIA
13
IN
THE MATTER
OF
THE SEARCH
14
OF
AN APPLE PHONE SEIZED DURING THE EXECUTION
OF
A
15
SEARCH WARRANT ON A BLACK LEXUS 18300 CALIFORNIA
16
LICENSE PLATE 35KGD203
17
18
19 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 5:16-CM-00010 (SP)
MICUS CURI E
BRIEF
OF
GREG CLAYBORN; JAMES GODOY, HAL HOUSER, TINA MEINS,
M RK
SANDEFUR, AND ROBERT VELASCO. Assigned to: The Hon. Sheri
Pym
MICUS
CURI E
BRIEF
OF
GREG
CLAYBORN~
JAMES GODOY,
HAL HOUSER, TINA
:MEINS,
MARK
S NDEF~
AND ROBERT VELASCO
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 19
20
21
22
23
24
25 26
27
28
I IL
III. IV.
T BLE
OF
CONTENTS
THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT PRIVACY ....................................................
.4
THE UNITED STATES' REQUEST IS MODEST
IN
SCOPE ................... 6 A. The United States Is
Not
Requesting Decryption
of
Personal
ata
························································
B. The United States Is Not Asking Apple to Hack Users .................... 9 C. This Is Not A Warrantless Search For Data ...................................... 10 D. The United States Has No Interest In Giving Hackers and Criminals Access to Information Through A Backdoor ......... ; ..............................................................................
11
E. Apple's Slippery-Slope Arguments Are Speculative ........................
13
THE ALL WRITS
CT
ANALYSIS TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES UNDERLYING THE UNITED STATES' REQUEST ............................... 14 APPLE'S CONSTITUTIONAL ARGillllENTS
RE
UNSUPPORTED
BY
BOTH CASE
L W
AND THE FACTS .................. 16 A. Apple's Substantive Due Process Claim Should
Be
:pismissed as it is an Improperly Pied Fourth Amendment Claim and Because the Court's Order is not Clearly Arbitrary
or
Unreasonable .................................................................. 16 B. The Court's Order Does Not Violate Apple's First Amendment Rights Because it Lawfully Compels Commercial Speech
in
the Form
of
Functional Code ........................ 17
MICUS
CURI E
BRIEF OF GREG CLAYBORN, JAMES GODOY, HAL HOUSER, TINA MEINS, MARK . SANDEFUR, AND ROBERT VELASCO
2
3
4
Cases
TABLE
OF
AUTHORITIES
A Woman s Friend Pregnancy Clinic
v
Harris,
5
No. 2:15-cv-02122-KJM-AC, 2015 WL 9274116 E.D. Cal. Dec.
Page s)
6
21, 2015) .............................................................................................................. 20
7
Am. Meat Inst.
v
United States Dept.
of
Agric.,
8
760 F.3d 18 D.C. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................ 11, 21
9
In re Application
of
United States
for
an Order Authorizing
10
Disclosure
of
Location Information
of
a Specified Wireless Telephone
[In
re Application],
849 F.
Supp.
2d
526 D. Md. 2011) ............................................. : ..................... 15
12
Cent. Hudson Gas Elec. Corp.
v
Public Serv. Comm n,
3
447 U.S. 557 1980) ...................................................................................... 20, 21
4
City
of
Ontario
v
Quon,
5
560 U.S. 746 U.S. 2010) ..................................................................................... 5
16
Commodity Futures Trading Comm n
v
Vartuli,
17
228 F.3d 94 2d Cir. 2000) ........................................................................... ..... 18
18
Conn
v
Gabbert,
526 U.S. 286 1999) ............................................................................................ 16
19
Costanich
v
Dep
t
of
Social
and
Health Servs.,
20
627 F.3d 1101 9th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................... 16, 17
2
County
of
Sacramento
v
Lewis,
22
523 U.S. 833 199S) ...................................................................... ...................... 16
23
CT/A-The Wireless Ass n
v
City
of
Berkeley,
24
---
F.
Supp.
3d---
2015 WL 5569072 N.D . Cal.
Sept.
21, 2015) ....................
20
25
Fed. Trade Comm n
v
Dean Foods Co.,
26
384 U.S. 597 1966) ............................................................ ................................. 7
27
Graham
v
Connor,
28
490 U.S. 386 1989) ............................................................................................ 16
MICUS
CURIAE
BRIEF OF GREG CLAYBORN, JAMES GODOY,
HAL
HOUSER. TINA MEINS,
MARK
SANDEFUR. AND ROBERT VELASCO