Diversity and Technology in Focus for Morgan Lewis's Incoming Chair
PREVENTING AND RESPONDING TO DATA BREACHES IN AN ERA OF CYBER INSECURITY
Stefan Hankin on Online Harassment
What Does the Supreme Court Ruling in Alice v. CLS Mean to a Software Entrepreneur?
A Moment of Simple Justice - Revenge Porn
Why Cyber Security?
How Fenwick Partners Caught the Tech Wave
How is Graphene Currently Used and What is the Hope for the Future?
What is Graphene? Fenwick Patent Attorney Has the Answer
Two Tips for Inventors Filing Patent Applications
Are Criminal Laws the Right Response to Revenge Porn?
Why Law Firms Are Starting to Think Like Media Companies
Schoenbrod: SCOTUS Ruling Helps EPA Deal With a "Stupid Statute"
Protecting and Enforcing Your High Technology Intellectual Property - Webinar Replay
Did the IRS Just Help or Hurt the Bitcoin Economy?
Legal Tech Startups: Separating Hype from Opportunity
Jail Time for Revenge Porn Offenses?
Polsinelli Podcast - Conducting Business in China
Rolling Out LPM Software at Akin Gump
Polsinelli Podcast - Generic Drugs to Market - What's the Climate in 2014?
While a controversial proposed state bill that would restrict law enforcement agencies’ use of drones is drawing criticism, the federal government is also tackling ways to regulate the use of this new technology. These...more
Every now and then The Nine agree on something. Among the unanimous rulings the U.S. Supreme Court issued in the final stretch this year was Riley v. California, which held that law enforcement officials may not make a...more
In Attorney General of Manitoba et al. v. Clark, 2013 MBQB 249 (“Clark”), the Crown sought to enforce an evidence gathering order under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (the “Act”). The order required...more
August 18, 2014 (Mimesis Law) -- As revenge porn laws crop up across the United States, Scott talks about some of the unintended consequences that can result from criminalizing such a broad swath of online activity....more
The United States Supreme Court has tackled the issue of cell phone privacy and ruled that data is different from other forms of technology. In late June, the Supreme Court issued an opinion: those of David Riley, a...more
Two recent opinions have significantly restricted the practice of warrantless collection of data stored on cell phones or by cell phone service providers. In Riley v. California the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that a warrant...more
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that police officers must generally secure a warrant before searching through the contents of a cell phone of a person they arrest. This decision will have important implications for...more
Employee privacy rights may have received a boost from the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of this year’s term. In Riley v. California, the most recent in a series of criminal search and seizure cases involving technology, the...more
The digital age has created a world in which over-sharing is the norm and electronic devices are capable of storing significant amounts of one’s personal information. However, in an important step to protect the privacy of...more
In another installment of “Google does WHAT?!?,” the Supreme Court on June 30 rejected the Silicon Valley giant’s bid to stop a lawsuit accusing the search company of wiretapping. You read that right. Wiretapping....more
In the waning days of its current term, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in California v. Riley that police officers generally violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches by conducting a...more
Fourth Amendment law is anything but static. If one surveys the jurisprudential landscape over the last 50 years, there are three amendments that the U.S. Supreme Court cannot leave alone: the First, the Fourth and the Fifth....more
Recently the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that under certain circumstances, a court may compel a criminal defendant to provide the password to encrypted digital evidence without violating the defendant’s...more
..The New York Court of Appeals has struck down that state’s “cyberbullying” law in a 5-2 decision, finding that it is overly broad and chills First Amendment-protected speech. The case arose when a 15-year-old boy pleaded...more
In a recent decision with significant implications for smart phone users’ privacy expectations, the Supreme Court, in Riley v. California, unanimously rejected the application of the “incident to arrest doctrine” to law...more
On June 25, 2014, in Riley v. California, a unanimous United States Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires that police obtain a warrant prior to searching the digital data found on an arrested suspect’s cell...more
The long-standing test for searching students at school requires that the search must be based on a “reasonable suspicion” that the student violated a school rule or law. A recent criminal decision from the United States...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently considered whether cell site location data is protected by the Fourth Amendment. On June 11, 2014, the court issued its decision in favor of privacy rights: the...more
The Supreme Court of the United States released a unanimous decision last week barring law enforcement from searching the mobile phones of individuals placed under arrest without first obtaining a search warrant or the...more
One of the fundamental liberties protected by the Bill of Rights is freedom from unreasonable searches. The Fourth Amendment reflects the concern that “We the People” should not be subjected to intrusive searches of our...more
In a unanimous decision issued last week, the Supreme Court ruled that police cannot search the cell phones of arrested individuals without a warrant. In reaching its decision, the Court recognized that there is an immense...more
In a stunning victory for Fourth Amendment rights and personal information privacy generally, the United States Supreme Court in Riley v California has held that police may not search an arrestee’s cell phone without a...more
In a decision that changes the way law enforcement officers collect electronic information, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Riley v. California, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), that officers may not search a cell phone incident to a...more
On June 25, 2014, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police must first obtain a warrant before searching the cell phones of arrested individuals, except in “exigent circumstances.” Chief Justice John Roberts authored...more
On June 25th, the Supreme Court brought the Fourth Amendment into the digital age with its ruling in Riley v. California. The case presented the question of whether a warrant was required in order for law enforcement to...more
Find a Science, Computers & Technology Author »
Back to Top