Year: 2014 (Vol. 38)
Topic: Fourth Amendment.
Question: (1) What is the proper definition of “exceeds authorized access” in the Computer Fraud Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030). (2) Whether comprehensive searches of personal computers at the national border require reasonable suspicion.
Format: PDF.
Preemption Notice! Q1 is preempted by Van Buren v. United States, 141 S.Ct. 1648 (2021), where the court held the CFAA does not cover those who have improper motives for obtaining information that is otherwise available to them
Q2 may not be preempted, but there is significantly more law on the issue now and the 4th Circuit’s position has changed since the problem was written. The 4th Circuit held that a forensic search of a phone was nonroutine and required individualized suspicion in United States v. Kolsuz, 890 F.3d 133 (4th Cir. 2018); but see United States v. Touset, 890 F.3d 1227, 1233 (11th Cir. 2018) (“We see no reason why the Fourth Amendment would require suspicion for a forensic search of an electronic device when it imposes no such requirement for a search of other personal property.”).