11–20 of 198 posts
It is also worth reading Apple's motion in this case: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2722199-5-15-MJ-0045... Actually I just noticed something about the title of the case: USA vs Black Lexus IS300. Is this actually a criminal forfeiture case?
It's confusing because the Goverment has advanced this All Writs theory in 9 different currently ongoing cases to try to get it to stick.
Still, Judge Orenstein gave some extremely important arguments regarding the All Writs Act (AWA) that the government tries to use:
"The plain text of the statute thus confers on all federal courts the authority to issue orders where three requirements are satisfied: 1. issuance of the writ must be "in aid of" the issuing court's jurisdiction; 2. the type of writ requested must be "necessary or appropriate" to provide such aid to the issuing court's jurisdiction; and 3. the issuance of the writ must be "agreeable to the usages and principles of law.""
"As set forth below, I conclude that in the circumstances of this case, the government's application does not fully satisfy the statute's threshold requirements: although the government easily satisfies the statute's first two elements, the extraordinary relief it seeks cannot be considered "agreeable to the usages and principles of law." In arguing to the contrary, the government posits a reading of the latter phrase so expansive – and in particular, in such tension with the doctrine of separation of powers – as to cast doubt on the AWA's constitutionality if adopted."
In short, he recognized that "All Writs Act" can't mean "we can order anything we want to" to allow (in this case) DEA not following the laws that already exist (which specifically don't prescribe what DEA demands from Apple).
The conclusion is pretty clear. Ultimately, the question to be answered in this matter, and in others like it across the country, is not whether the government should be able to force Apple to help it unlock a specific device; it is instead whether the All Writs Act resolves that issue and many others like it yet to come. For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that it does not. The government's motion is denied.…
I've seen a lot of doom and gloom about the current state of the US government all around the internet, but I have to say that this kind of thing helps me remain optimistic. A judge is free to make his or her decision without fear of coercion or some fanciful Tom Clancy-esque story unfolding as some people seem to believe things to work. The system may be flawed, but it's not broken yet.
Would this case have come to the same result (which is likely to be appealed) if it was say UnluckySmallCo. instead of Apple that was on the receiving end of the government's pressure?
It is also worth reading Apple's motion in this case: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2722199-5-15-MJ-0045... Actually I just noticed something about the title of the case: USA vs Black Lexus IS300. Is this actually a criminal forfeiture case?
That's a motion from a case in California. This ruling is from one in New York. It's confusing because the Goverment has advanced this All Writs theory in 9 different currently ongoing cases to try to get it to stick.
The only one I've heard about is the San Bernardino shooter's phone. What are the other eight cases?
"The government's position also produces a wholly different kind of absurdity: the idea that the First Congress might so thoroughly undermine fundamental principles of the Constitution that many of its members had personally just helped to write or to ratify. Its preferred reading of the law – which allows a court to confer on the executive branch any investigative authority Congress has decided to withhold, so long as it has not affirmatively outlawed it – would transform the AWA from a limited gap-filing statute that ensures the smooth functioning of the judiciary itself into a mechanism for upending the separation of powers by delegating to the judiciary a legislative power bounded only by Congress's superior ability to prohibit or preempt. I conclude that the constitutionality of such an interpretation is so doubtful as to render it impermissible as a matter of statutory construction."
It is also worth reading Apple's motion in this case: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2722199-5-15-MJ-0045... Actually I just noticed something about the title of the case: USA vs Black Lexus IS300. Is this actually a criminal forfeiture case?
Note that this is not the San Bernardino shooter case but just the drug case in NY. Still, Judge Orenstein gave some extremely important arguments regarding the All Writs Act (AWA) that the government tries to use: "The plain text of the statute thus confers on all federal courts the authority to issue orders where three requirements are satisfied: 1. issuance of the writ must be "in aid of" the issuing court's juris…
"Apple identified nine requests filed in federal courts across the country from October 8, 2015 (the date of the instant Application) through February 9, 2016. Id. at 2. In each, Apple has been ordered under the authority of the AWA (or has been told that an order has been requested or entered) to help the government bypass the passcode security of a total of twelve devices;
in each such case in which Apple has actually received a court order, Apple has objected"
Not especially shocking. The Gov'ts proposed theory of the All Writs Act as the legal equivalent of "sudo do whatever I want" was pretty damn tenuous.
What a fantastic way of putting it. Makes the point and good for a chuckle.