Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Use of Information and Communications Technology in Criminal Procedure in the USA

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Cybercrime, Organized Crime, and Societal Responses

  • 1958 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter deals with the impact which information and communications technology has had on criminal procedure in the USA. It will not only lay out the framework of laws regulating criminal and national security wiretapping as well as access to stored electronic data in the form of e-mails and voicemail, etc. but also the jurisprudence regulating intercepting communications by I-phones, smart phones as well as the search of stored information in computers and I-phones and even in the “cloud.” Electronic communications have called into question the traditional Fourth Amendment jurisprudence which had denied privacy protection to information given to a third party, such as a telecommunications provider, or to movements in public. But the mass surveillance by the National Security Agency (NSA) and the scope of modern data collection and mining are gradually leading to a more critical approach to privacy issues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adler, M. (1996). Cyberspace, general searches, and digital contraband: The fourth amendment and the net-wide search. Yale Law Journal, 105, 1093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apuzzo, M. (2014, March 19). Judge Rebukes Justice Dept. for Requesting Overly Broad E-Mail Searches. New York Times. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/us/judge-rebukes-officials-over-requests-for-broad-email-searches.html?ref=us.

    Google Scholar 

  • Automatic Number Plate Recognition. (2015). Wikipedia. Retrieved March 22, 2015, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number_plate_recognition#United_States.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bales, C. (2012). Unbreakable: The fifth amendment and computer passwords. Arizona State Law Journal, 44, 1293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, S. (2012). Encryption, smart phones, and the fifth amendment. Whittier Law Review, 33, 525; 533–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casey, T. (2008). Electronic surveillance and the right to be secure. University of California Davis Law Review, 41, 977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel, J. (2012). Rethinking the application of the fifth amendment to passwords and encryption in the age of cloud computing. Whittier Law Review, 33, 543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, C. (2012). Checking in: Historic cell site location information and the stored communications act. Seton Hall Law Review, 42, 769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshray, S. (2012). Looking through the prism of privacy and trespass: Smartphones and the fourth amendment. University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law Review, 16, 73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glanz, J., Larson, J., & Lehren, A. W. (2014, January 27). Spy agencies tap data streaming from phone apps. New York Times. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/world/spy-agencies-scour-phone-apps-for-personal-data.html?ref=world&_r=0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, J. (2013, January 15). Police to use fake pill bottles to track drugstore thieves. New York Times. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/nyregion/ny-police-to-track-drugstore-robbers-via-decoy-bottles.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, O. (2010). Applying the fourth amendment to the Internet: A general approach. Stanford Law Review, 62, 1005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, O. (2012). The mosaic theory of the fourth amendment. Michigan Law Review, 111, 311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimel, C. (2013). DNA profiles, computer searches, and the fourth amendment. Duke Law Journal, 62, 933.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtblau, E., & Schmidt M. S. (2013, August 3). Other agencies clamor for data N.S.A. compiles. New York Times. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/us/other-agencies-clamor-for-data-nsa-compiles.html?ref=us.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtblau, E. (2005, April 5). Justice Dept. Defends Patriot Act Before Senate Hearings. New York Times (p. A21).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzetti, M., & Elliot, J. (2013, December 9). Spies infiltrate a fantasy realm of online games. New York Times. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/world/spies-dragnet-reaches-a-playing-field-of-elves-and-trolls.html?ref=world.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, M. (2012). The fourth amendment and new technologies: The misapplication of analogical reasoning. Southern Illinois University Law Journal, 36, 475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G., Tate, J., & Gellman, B. (2013, October 16). Documents reveal N.S.A.’s extensive involvement in targeted killing program. Washington Post. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/documents-reveal-nsas-extensive-involvement-in-targeted-killing-program/2013/10/16/29775278-3674-11e3-8a0e-4e2cf80831fc_story.html.

  • Nixon, R. (2013, July 3). U.S. postal service logging all mail for law enforcement. New York Times. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/monitoring-of-snail-mail.html?ref=us.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nixon, R. (2014, October 27). Report reveals wider tracking of mail in U.S. New York Times. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/us/us-secretly-monitoring-mail-of-thousands.html?ref=us.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlroth, N., Larson, J., & Shane, S. (2013, September 5). N.S.A. able to foil basic safeguards of privacy on web. New York Times. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsa-foils-much-internet-encryption.html?ref=world.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risen, J., & Lichtblau, E. (2013, June 8). How the U.S. uses technology to mine more data more quickly. New York Times. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/us/revelations-give-look-at-spy-agencys-wider-reach.html?ref=world&_r=0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risen, J., & Poitras, L. (2014, May 31). N.S.A. collecting millions of faces from web images. New York Times. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/us/nsa-collecting-millions-of-faces-from-web-images.html?ref=us.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, C., & Baker, P. (2013, May 22). Obama, in a shift, to limit targets of drone strikes. New York Times. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/us-acknowledges-killing-4-americans-in-drone-strikes.html?ref=us.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, C., & Mazzetti, M. (2013, November 14). C.I.A. collects global data on transfers of money. New York Times. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/15/us/cia-collecting-data-on-international-money-transfers-officials-say.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, C. (2013, July 25). Roberts’s picks reshaping secret surveillance court. New York Times. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/us/politics/robertss-picks-reshaping-secret-surveillance-court.html?ref=us.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, C. (2014, June 17). Lawyer not entitled to see classified surveillance material court rules. New York Times. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/us/lawyer-not-entitled-to-see-classified-surveillance-material-court-rules.html?ref=us.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, P. (2008). Reviving telecommunications surveillance law. University of Chicago Law Review, 75, 287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, S. (2013a, February 15). Rise of drones in U.S. drives efforts to limit police use. New York Times. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/technology/rise-of-drones-in-us-spurs-efforts-to-limit-uses.html?ref=us&_r=0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, S. (2013b, October 13). Privacy fears grow as cities increase surveillance. New York Times. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/technology/privacy-fears-as-surveillance-grows-in-cities.html?ref=us.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2013a, April 7). Targeted killing comes to define war on terror. New York Times. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/world/targeted-killing-comes-to-define-war-on-terror.html?ref=world&_r=0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2013b, February 8). Debating a court to vet drone strikes. New York Times. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/world/a-court-to-vet-kill-lists.html?ref=us&_r=0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2013c, July 19). Surveillance court renews order for phone call data. New York Times. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/us/surveillance-court-renews-order-for-phone-call-data.html?ref=us.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2013d, July 25). Spy agencies under heaviest scrutiny since abuse scandal of the 70’s. New York Times. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/us/politics/challenges-to-us-intelligence-agencies-recall-senate-inquiry-of-70s.html?ref=us.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slobogin, C. (2005). Transaction surveillance by the government. Mississippi Law Journal, 75, 139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slobogin, C. (2008). Government data mining and the fourth amendment. University of Chicago Law Review, 75, 317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, B. (2001, November 20). FBI software cracks encryption wall. MSNBC. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3341694/#.UZCVKcrLsoE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaman, S. C. (2001). Landesbericht U.S.A. In W. Gropp & B. Huber (Eds.), Rechtliche Initiativen gegen organisierte Kriminalität. Freiburg im Breisgau: Max-Planck-Institute for Foreign and International Comparative Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisman, J. (2013, July 24). House defeats effort to rein in N.S.A. data gathering. New York Times. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/us/politics/house-defeats-effort-to-rein-in-nsa-data-gathering.html?ref=us.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worth, R. F., Mazzetti, M., & Shane, S. (2013, February 6). Hazards of drone strikes face rare public scrutiny. New York Times (p. A1, A10).

    Google Scholar 

United States Court Cases

  • ACLU v. NSA, 493 F 3d 644, 655-57 (6th Cir 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation Inc v Bush, 507 F 3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Almada v State, 994 P 2d 299, 307-08 (Wyo 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • Andresen v Maryland, 427 US 463, 473 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird v State, 398 S W 3d 220, 230 (Tex Crim App 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • California Banker’s Ass’n, 416 US 21, 53-54 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  • Clapper v. Amnesty Intern USA,133 S Ct 1138, 1148-49 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth v Augustine, 4 N E 3d 846, 867 (Mass 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth v Bender, 811 A 2d 1016 (Pa Super 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth v Brion, 652 A 2d 287, 289 (Pa 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth v Efaw, 774 A 2d 735 (Pa 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth v Gelfgatt, 11 N E 3d 605, 615-16 (Mass 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth v Rousseau, 990 N E 2d 543, 551–53 (Mass 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowles v State, 23 P 3d 1168, 1172 (Alaska 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Devega v State, 689 S E 2d 293, 299–300 (Ga 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Doe v United States, 487 US 201, 214–19 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas v Dobbs, 419 F 3d 1097, 1102 (10th Cir 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher v United States, 425 US 391, 408 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  • Florida v Jardines, 133 S Ct 1409, 1416 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • Frasier v State, 794 N E 2d 449, 465 (Ind App 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgia v Randolph, 547 US 103, 109–23 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Guest v Leis, 255 F 3d 325, 335, 342 (6th Cir 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedgepath v Commonwealth, 441 S W 3d 119, 130–31 (Ky 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hepting v AT&T, 439 F Supp 2d 974 (N D Cal 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • In re Application of the U.S. for an Order Authorizing the Use of Two Pen Register and Trap and Trace Devices, 632 F Supp 2d 202, 211 (E D N Y 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • In re Application of the United States for an Order Authorizing the Use of a Pen Register & a Trap & Trace Device & (2) Authorizing Release of Subscriber Info. & Cell Site Info., 384 F Supp 2d 562, 564 (E D N Y 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • In re Application of the United States, 736 F Supp 2d 578, 579 (E D N Y 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • In re Application of the United States, 747 F Supp 2d 827, 846 (S D Tex 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • In re Application of the United States, 809 F Supp 2d 113, 116, 127 (E D N Y 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • In re Application of United States for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F 3d 600, 610–12 (5th Cir 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • In re Application of United States of America for Order Directing Provider of Electronic Communication Service to Disclose Records to Government, 620 F 3d 304, 312–13 (3d Cir 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated March 25, 2011, 670 F 3d 1335, 1346, 1352–53 (11th Cir 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • In re Maxfield, 945 P 2d 196, 200–01 (Wash 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • In re Pers Restraint of Nichols, 256 P 3d 1131, 1135 (Wash 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • In re: Sealed Case No’s 02-001, 02-002, 310 F 3d 717, 721 (USFIS App 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyllo v United States, 533 US 27, 37 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Massachusetts v Sheppard, 468 US 981, 987–88 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • People v Beavers, 227 N W 2d 511, 514 (Mich 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  • People v Devone, 931 N E 2d 70, 74 (N Y 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • People v Gall, 30 P 3d 145, 153 (Colo 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • People v Harris, 886 N E 2d 947 (Ill 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • People v Mason, 989 P 2d 757, 760 (Colo 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • People v Nesbitt, 938 N E 2d 600, 605–06 (Ill App 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • People v Prinzing, 907 N.E.2d 87, 99–100 (Ill App 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • People v Stanley, 86 Cal Rptr 2d 89, 93 (Cal App 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • People v Weaver, 909 N E 2d 1195, 1199–1202 (N Y 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 2473 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Augafa, 992 P 2d 723, 734 (Haw App 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Boyd, 992 A 2d 1071, 1082–83 (Conn 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Brereton, 826 N W 2d 369, 379 (Wis 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Bridges, 925 P 2d 357 (Haw 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Clark, 916 P 2d 384, 390 (Wash 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Davis, 732 N W 2d 173, 182 (Minn 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Domicz, 907 A 2d 395, 402–04 (N J 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Earls, 70 A 3d 630, 645 (N J 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Geraw, 795 A 2d 1219, 1225–26 (Vt 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Glass, 583 P 2d 872, 875 (Alaska 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Henderson, 854 N W 2d 616, 632–33 (Neb 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Holden, 964 P 2d 318, 322 (Utah App 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Jackson, 76 P 3d 217, 224 (Wash 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Jordan, 156 P 3d 893, 898 (Wash 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v McAllister, 840 A 2d 967, 969 (N J App 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Mubita, 188 P 3d 867, 875 (Idaho 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Mullens, 650 S E 2d 169, 190 (W Va 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Ortiz, 600 N W 2d 805, 817 (Neb 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Page, 911 P 2d 513 (Alaska 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Ruck, 155 Idaho 475, 484 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Rupnick, 125 P 3d 541, 547–48 (Kan 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Russo, 790 A 2d 1132, 1140–41 (Conn 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Skinner, 10 So 3d 1212, 1217–18 (La 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Sloane, 939 A 2d 796, 803–04 (N J 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Sobczak, 833 N W 2d 59, 71–73 (Wis 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Subdiaz-Osorio, 849 N W 2d 748 (Wis 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Tackitt, 67 P 3d 295, 302–03 (Mont 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Wiegand, 645 N W 2d 125, 137 (Minn 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Williams, 590 S E 2d 151, 154–55 (Ga App 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Worthy, 661 A 2d 1244 (N J 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Young, 867 P 2d 593 (Wash 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v Zahn, 812 N W 2d 490, 498 (S D 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson v State, 667 So 2d 410, 411–12 (Fla App 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracey v State, 152 So 3d 504, 524–26 (Fla 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Adjani, 452 F 3d 1140, 1150 (9th Cir 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Al-Marri, 230 F Supp 2d 535, 539–40 (S D N Y 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Andrus, 483 F 3d 711, 719–22 (10th Cir 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Biasucci, 786 F 2d 504, 510–11 (2d Cir 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Boyce, 351 F 3d 1102, 1107, 1111 (11th Cir 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Bradley, 644 F 3d 1213, 1259–61 (11th Cir 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Bridges, 344 F 3d 1010, 1016 (9th Cir 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Carey, 172 F 3d 1268, 1273 (10th Cir 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Christie, 717 F 3d 1156, 1164–66 (10th Cir 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc, 621 F 3d 1162, 1171–72 (9th Cir 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Coreas, 419 F 3d 151, 157–59 (2d Cir 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Cuevas-Sanchez, 821 F 2d 248, 252 (5th Cir l987).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Davis, 326 F 3d 361, 365–66 (2d Cir 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Davis, 754 F 3d 1205, 1217 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Doe, 465 US 605, 612–14 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Duggan, 743 F 2d 59, 78 (2d Cir 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Falls, 34 F 3d 674, 680 (8th Cir l994).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Fernandez, 600 F3d 56 (1st Cir 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Forest, 355 F 3d 942, 950–51 (6th Cir 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Forrester, 512 F 3d 500, 509–11 (9th Cir 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Frechette, 583 F 3d 374, 379 (6th Cir 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Fricosu, 841 F Supp 2d 1232, 1237 (D Colo 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Garcia, 474 F 3d 994 (7th Cir 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Gonzalez, 328 F 3d 543, 548 (9th Cir 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Gourde, 440 F 3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Hambrick, 55 F Supp 2d 504, 508 (W D Va 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Heatley, 41 F Supp 2d 284 (S D N Y 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Hill, 459 F 3d 966, 975–77 (9th Cir 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Hill, 459 F 3d 966, 978 (9th Cir 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Hubbell, 530 US 27, 43 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Jones, 132 S Ct 945, 946 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Jones, 132 S Ct 945, 957 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Karo, 468 US 705, 714–18 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Kattaria, 503 F 3d 703, 707 (8th Cir 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Kennedy, 81 F Supp 2d 1103, 1110 (D Kan 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v King, 604 F 3d 125, 134–37 (3d Cir 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Kirschner, 823 F Supp 2d 665, 668–69 (E D Mich 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Knotts, 460 US 276, 282 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Kouzmine, 921 F Supp 1131, 1135 (S D N Y 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Koyomejian, 970 F 2d 536, 542 (9th Cir 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Lee, 359 F 3d 194, 199–203 (3d Cir 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Longoria, 177 F 3d 1179, 1183–84 (10th Cir 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Lucas, 640 F 3d 168, 177–78 (6th Cir 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Mann, 592 F 3d 779, 785 (7th Cir 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Martin, 426 F 3d 68, 74–75 (2d Cir 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Maynard, 615 F 3d 544, 560–63 (D C Cir 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v McArthur, 573 F 3d 608, 613 (8th Cir 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Meriwether, 917 F 2d 955, 959 (6th Cir 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Mesa-Rincon, 911 F 2d 1433, 1437 (l0th Cir l990).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Miller, 425 US 435, 442 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Myers, 692 F 2d 823, 859 (2d Cir 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Nicholson, 955 F Supp 588, 590–93 (E D Va 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Ning Wen, 471 F 3d 777 (7th Cir 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Padilla, 520 F 2d 526, 528 (1st Cir 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Paxton, 573 F 3d 859, 861–62 (9th Cir 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Pelton, 835 F 2d 1067, 1075–76 (4th Cir 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Purcell, 236 F 3d 1274, 1279 (11th Cir 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Reyes, 922 F Supp 818, 833–34 (S D N Y 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Richards, 659 F 3d 527, 539–40 (6th Cir 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Sarkissian, 841 F 2d 959, 965 (9th Cir 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Scarfo, 180 F Supp 2d 572, 578 (D N J 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Shields, 458 F 3d 269, 278 (3d Cir 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Thomas, 757 F2d 1359, 1367 (2d Cir 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Torres, 751 F 2d 875, 880–82 (7th Cir 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F 2d 908 (4th Cir 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Turner, 169 F 3d 84, 88–89 (1st Cir 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Upham, 168 F 3d 532, 535 (1st Cir 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Vankesteren, 553 F 3d 286, 290–91 (4th Cir 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Villegas, 899 F 2d 1324, 1335–36 (2d Cir 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Wagers, 452 F 3d 534, 542–43 (6th Cir 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Wahchumwah, 704 F 3d 606 (9th Cir 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v White, 401 US 745, 749–51, 762–63, Douglas dissent at 756, Harlan dissent at 786 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Williams, 124 F 3d 411, 417 (3d Cir 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Williams, 592 F 3d 511, 521–24 (4th Cir 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Yonn, 702 F 2d 1341, 1347 (11th Cir 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v Ziegler, 474 F 3d 1184, 1191–92 (9th Cir 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • US v Giberson, 527 F 3d 882, 889–90 (9th Cir 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitaker v Garcetti, 291 F Supp 2d 1132, 1138 (C D Cal 2003).

    Google Scholar 

United States Statutes

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Saint Louis University School of Law, 100 N. Tucker Avenue, St. Louis, MO, 63101-1930, USA

    Stephen C. Thaman

Authors
  1. Stephen C. Thaman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen C. Thaman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. International Society of Criminology, Washington, DC, USA

    Emilio C. Viano

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Thaman, S.C. (2017). The Use of Information and Communications Technology in Criminal Procedure in the USA. In: Viano, E. (eds) Cybercrime, Organized Crime, and Societal Responses. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44501-4_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44501-4_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-44499-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-44501-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation