Apple vs. FBI (2016) Court Filing, retrieved on February 16, 2016, is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 5 of 17. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here B. The All Writs Act Permits This Order The All Writs Act provides in relevant part that "all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law." 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). As the Supreme Court explained, "[t]he All Writs Act is a residual source of authority to issue writs that are not otherwise covered by statute." , 474 U.S. 34, 43 (1985). The All Writs Act permits a court, in its "sound judgment," to issue orders necessary "to achieve the rational ends of law" and "the ends of justice entrusted to it." , 434 U.S. 159, 172- 3 (1977) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Courts must apply the All Writs Act "flexibly in conformity with these principles." Id. at 173; 698 F.3d 64, 67 (2d Cir.2012) ("[C]ourts have significant flexibility in exercising their authority under the Act.") (citation omitted). Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction v. United States Marshals Service United States v. New York Telephone Co. accord United States v. Catoggio, Pursuant to the All Writs Act, the Court has the power, "in aid of a valid warrant, to order a third party to provide nonburdensome technical assistance to law enforcement officers." , 608 F.2d 1283, 1289 (9th Cir. 1979) ( ., 434 U.S. 159 (1977)); , 2015 WL 5233551 (D.P.R. August 27, 2015) (granting government's request pursuant to the All Writs Act for services to provide information, facilities, and technical assistance to facilitate the consensual recording of all electronic communication to and from a particular mobile phone); , 841 F.Supp. 2d 1232, 1238 (D. Colo. 2012) (order issued under All Writs Act requiring defendant to provide password to encrypted computer seized pursuant to a search warrant). In , the Supreme Court held that courts have authority under the All Writs Act to issue supplemental orders to third parties to facilitate the execution of search warrants. The Court held that "[t]he power conferred by the Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice, . . . and encompasses even those who have not taken any affirmative action to hinder justice." . at 174. In particular, the Court upheld an order directing a phone company to assist in executing a pen register search warrant issued under Rule 41. . at 171-76; , 616 F.2d 1122, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 1980) (affirming district court's order compelling Mountain Bell to trace telephone calls on grounds that "the obligations imposed . . . were reasonable ones." ( , 434 U.S. at 172)). Plum Creek Lumber Co. v. Hutton citing United States v. New York. Tel. Co see also In re U.S. for an Order Directing a Provider of Communication Services to Provide Technical Assistance to Agents of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration United States v. Fricosu New York Telephone Co. Id See id see also Application of U.S. for an Order Authorizing an In-Progress Trace of Wire Commc'ns over Tel. Facilities (Mountain Bell) citing New York Tel. Co. New York Telephone Co. also held that "Rule 41 is not limited to tangible items but is sufficiently flexible to include within its scope electronic intrusions authorized by a finding of probable cause." 434 U.S. at 170. The Court relied upon the authority of a search warrant pursuant to Rule 41 to predicate an All Writs Act order commanding a utility to implement a pen register and trap and trace device before Congress had passed a law that specifically authorized pen registers by court order. Under . and , the All Writs Act provides authority for this Court to order Apple to assist with steps necessary to perform the search ordered by the warrant for the SUBJECT DEVICE. New York Telephone Co Mountain Bell Further, based on the authority given to the courts under the All Writs Act, courts have issued orders, similar to the one the government is seeking here, that require a manufacturer to assist in accessing a cell phone's files so that a warrant may be executed as originally contemplated. , ., , 2014 WL 5510865, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2014); , No. 13-CR-5525, ECF No. 39 (W.D. Wa. Nov. 13, 2013). Courts have also issued All Writs Act orders in furtherance of warrants in a wide variety of contexts, including: ordering a defendant to produce a copy of the unencrypted contents of a computer seized pursuant to a federal search warrant ( , 841 F.Supp. 2d at 1238); ordering a phone company to assist with a trap and trace device ( , 616 F.2d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 1980)); ordering a credit card company to produce customer records ( , 583 F. Supp. 717, 722 (E.D. Va. 1984)); ordering a landlord to provide access to security camera videotapes ( , No. 03-89, 2003 WL 22053105, at *3 (D. Md. Aug. 22, 2003) (unpublished order)); and ordering a phone company to assist with consensual monitoring of a customer's calls ( , No. 15-1242 (M), 2015 WL 5233551, at *4-5 (D.P.R. Aug. 27, 2015) (unpublished order)). Because the orders are typically, as here, sought in the midst of a criminal investigation, they are usually obtained by way of application and not noticed motion. ., , 434 U.S. at 162; ., 2015 WL 5233551, at *1; , 2014 WL 5510865, at *1; __Application of U.__S., 616 F.2d at 1122; 2003 WL 22053105, at *1. The government is not aware of any case in which the government obtained a Rule 41 search warrant but was denied an All Writs Act Order when necessary to facilitate the execution of the warrant.[5] See e.g In re Order Requiring [XXX], Inc. to Assist in the Execution of a Search Warrant Issued by This Court by Unlocking a Cellphone see also United States v. Navarro Fricosu Mountain Bell United States v. Hall In re Application of United States for an Order Directing X to Provide Access to Videotapes In re U.S. ex parte See, e.g New York Telephone Co. In re U.S In re [XXX] In re Application of United States, In , the Supreme Court considered three factors in concluding that the issuance of the All Writs Act order to the phone company was appropriate. First, it found that the phone company was not "so far removed from the underlying controversy that its assistance could not be permissibly compelled." . at 174. Second, it concluded that the order did not place an undue burden on the phone company. . at 175. Third, it determined that the assistance of the company was necessary to achieve the purpose of the warrant. See id. Each of these factors supports issuance of the order directed to Apple in this case. New York Telephone Co. Id See id Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case No. 15-0451M retrieved on September 25, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. archive.epic.org

Apple and the Case of Government-Sanctioned Jail Breaking

The Dobson Cases and the Birth of Design Patent Damages

Too Long; Didn't Read

Boost your HackerNoon story @ $159.99! 🚀

The All Writs Act and the San Bernardino iPhone Case

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

Apple and the Case of Government-Sanctioned Jail Breaking

Writing Code for Justice: Apple's Burden or Responsibility?

Access Denied: The FBI's Battle to Unlock the San Bernardino iPhone

Apple vs. FBI: Search and Seizure Warrant

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

Apple and the Case of Government-Sanctioned Jail Breaking

Writing Code for Justice: Apple's Burden or Responsibility?

Access Denied: The FBI's Battle to Unlock the San Bernardino iPhone

Apple vs. FBI: Search and Seizure Warrant

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps