Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 385 U.S. 293, 302, 87 S.Ct. 408, 17 L.Ed.2d 374 (1966). 34 . Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979). 35 . Id. at 741, 99 S.Ct. 2577 (emphasis added). 19 . See id. V 5. 20 . See Opp. Mem. at 3. 21 . Omegle.com Privacy Poli meno, 500 U.S. 248, 250, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991). 50 . Probation Order at 2 ¶ U. 51 . Opp. Mem. at 11. 52 . United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 117, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984) (emphasis added). 53 . See Katz, 389 U.S. at 356-57, 88 S.Ct. 507. 54 . Smith, 442 U.S. at 740, 99 S.Ct. 2577. 55 . Opp. Mem. at 11. 56 . Id. 57 . DiTomasso’s Reply Memorandum ("Rep. Mem.”), at 5. 58 . Opp. Mem. at 13. 59 . Id. at 12. 60 . Id. at 13. 61 . Id. at 12. 62 .See Warshak v. United States, 490 F.3d 455 (6th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>), vacated en hanc on other grounds, 532 F.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that users have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of stored email (B) holding that prisoners do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cells (C) holding that defendant had legitimate expectation of privacy in contents of locked safe stored in his apartment but owned by third party (D) holding that users have reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages despite advance warning that the messages could be read (E) holding appellant failed to show any expectation of privacy in files stored on the computer system in his office was one that society accepts as objectively reasonable
Output (English): holding that prisoners do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cells