Judge Gives Police Total Access to Suspect’s Inbox

The Citizen's Guide to the Future
July 21 2014 4:32 PM

Judge Gives Police Total Access to Suspect’s Inbox

53026917EZ008_MLB_Draft
Not a computer.

Photo by Ezra Shaw/Getty Images

Last Friday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein issued a controversial ruling granting police a warrant to search the entirety of a suspect’s Gmail inbox for incriminating evidence. On its face, the judgment might not seem particularly startling. But if more courts adopt Gorenstein’s dangerous logic, we may soon see an unprecedented erosion in digital privacy.

Here’s the thing about virtual searches: They aren’t all that different from physical searches. When a magistrate issues a search warrant, she specifies what items can be searched for and what areas can be searched. There’s no real reason the same shouldn’t be true when police want to search a computer or an inbox. Magistrates could, in theory, provide law enforcement with certain keywords names to search or folders to scour. Doing so would protect an individual’s entire cache of documents, images, and data from being invaded—while allowing police to zero in on the evidence they hope to find.

Advertisement

But that isn’t what Gorenstein, a federal judge, did in this case, which stems from a money-laundering investigation. Instead, Gorenstein gave police unrestricted access to the suspect’s emails, specifying no specific parameters for their search. In doing so, Gorenstein furthered an alarming trend: Magistrate judges have begun treating computers as single physical entities—like a file cabinet—and given police carte blanche to search through the whole thing. The problem here is obvious. A file cabinet, no matter how big, has a limited number of files. But a hard drive might have thousands upon thousands of files, each of which could contain information of a trove of highly personal information. Inboxes do, too. Hard drives and inboxes, then, aren’t really like a file cabinet—they’re like a whole house filled with information tucked in every nook and cranny.

Most magistrates would be reluctant to grant a warrant that allowed police to search every single space in every room of a house. In fact, such a warrant would tread dangerously close to the “general warrants”—an unlimited license to search and seize—that the Framers banished with the Fourth Amendment. So why should a digital search be any different? In defending broad virtual warrants, judges usually harp on the fact that computer and inboxes have vast quantities of scattered, often hidden data. (Gorenstein noted that few criminals log their illicit activities in a folder titled “drug records.”) As a result, these judges argue, police must be able to search every digital alcove they can find. The invoice from your last heroin sale might be tucked in a folder titled “Grandma’s 80th Birthday Party.”

But this is deeply faulty logic. First, physical items can be concealed, too; that doesn’t necessarily give police authority to rifle through every single drawer in a house. Second, although computers hold more potentially incriminating material than a file cabinet might, they’re also easier to search. When a judge issues a warrant to search a hard drive or inbox, she might limit it to data accessed on certain dates or containing certain searchable key words. Or she might permit officers to examine folders but not their contents, and request another warrant to search a suspicious folder. (Courts have attempted these approaches, to moderate success.)

Ultimately, the Supreme Court will surely have to step in to draw the contours of our rights of digital privacy. And when the court does rule, don’t expect it to follow Gorenstein’s logic. As my colleague Dahlia Lithwick recently pointed out, the justices really are trying to apply the Fourth Amendment reasonably and consistently to our more personal and complex gadgets. In the last two years, they’ve limited the scope of both GPS and cellphone searches. Reviving the much-reviled general warrant for the digital age, as Gorenstein hopes to do, probably won’t fly with this court.

Future Tense is a partnership of SlateNew America, and Arizona State University.

Mark Joseph Stern is a writer for Slate. He covers science, the law, and LGBTQ issues.

TODAY IN SLATE

History

Slate Plus Early Read: The Self-Made Man

The story of America’s most pliable, pernicious, irrepressible myth.

Rehtaeh Parsons Was the Most Famous Victim in Canada. Now, Journalists Can’t Even Say Her Name.

Mitt Romney May Be Weighing a 2016 Run. That Would Be a Big Mistake.

Amazing Photos From Hong Kong’s Umbrella Revolution

Transparent Is the Fall’s Only Great New Show

The XX Factor

Rehtaeh Parsons Was the Most Famous Victim in Canada

Now, journalists can't even say her name.

Doublex

Lena Dunham, the Book

More shtick than honesty in Not That Kind of Girl.

What a Juicy New Book About Diane Sawyer and Katie Couric Fails to Tell Us About the TV News Business

Does Your Child Have Sluggish Cognitive Tempo? Or Is That Just a Disorder Made Up to Scare You?

  News & Politics
Foreigners
Sept. 29 2014 10:00 PM “Everything Must Change in Italy” An interview with Italian Prime Minster Matteo Renzi.
  Business
Moneybox
Sept. 29 2014 7:01 PM We May Never Know If Larry Ellison Flew a Fighter Jet Under the Golden Gate Bridge
  Life
Dear Prudence
Sept. 30 2014 6:00 AM Drive-By Bounty Prudie advises a woman whose boyfriend demands she flash truckers on the highway.
  Double X
The XX Factor
Sept. 29 2014 1:52 PM Do Not Fear California’s New Affirmative Consent Law
  Slate Plus
Slate Fare
Sept. 29 2014 8:45 AM Slate Isn’t Too Liberal, but … What readers said about the magazine’s bias and balance.
  Arts
Brow Beat
Sept. 29 2014 9:06 PM Paul Thomas Anderson’s Inherent Vice Looks Like a Comic Masterpiece
  Technology
Future Tense
Sept. 30 2014 7:36 AM Almost Humane What sci-fi can teach us about our treatment of prisoners of war.
  Health & Science
Bad Astronomy
Sept. 30 2014 7:30 AM What Lurks Beneath The Methane Lakes of Titan?
  Sports
Sports Nut
Sept. 28 2014 8:30 PM NFL Players Die Young. Or Maybe They Live Long Lives. Why it’s so hard to pin down the effects of football on players’ lives.