Abandoned Password Protected Phones and the Right to Privacy
This article discusses the Fourth Amendment and our right to privacy under the law in regards to password protected devices. "Without a search warrant, the defendant would, of course, assert his right to privacy because he would argue by his act of password protecting the contents of the phone, he evidenced an intent to exercise his right to privacy."
October 21, 2024 at 10:00 AM
9 minute read
Privacy
In People v Gomez, 225 A.D.3d 710 (2nd Dept. 2024), decided on Mar.13, 2024, the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court for the Second Judicial Department, rejected the defendant's contention that his attorney was ineffective because he failed to move to suppress his cell phone contents. The Appellate Court found that the defense attorney's failure to move to suppress the contents of the defendant's cell phone that was password protected but abandoned by him was a novel theory and thus not subject to the ineffectiveness standard.
The underlying issue concerning the viability of a motion to suppress the contents of an abandoned, but password protected cell phone raises a novel legal question ripe for discussion.
In Gomez, the defendant was convicted, after a jury trial and judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County, Edward T. McLoughlin, J., rendered July 1, 2019, of predatory sexual assault, criminal sexual act in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, assault in the first degree, and related charges, arising out of a sexual assault of the complainant, a neighbor of the defendant, in the complainant's home while her then five-year-old daughter was present in the home.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Is Invasion of Privacy an Appropriate Analogue for Data Breach Cases?
8 minute read
New York Times, Athletic Media Hit With Data Privacy Class Action for Allegedly Sharing User Data
McDermott Adds Gibson Dunn Cyber and Privacy Co-Chair to White Collar Defense Practice
3 minute read
Trending Stories
- 1A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
- 2Mass. Judge Declares Mistrial in Talc Trial: 'Court Can't Accommodate This Case'
- 3Elder Litigators Confront Tough Questions in Last Act of Careers
- 4Paul Weiss Hits Kirkland Funds Practice For Fifth Time This Year
- 5It's Time Law Firms Were Upfront About Who Their Salaried Partners Are
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
