Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): historical CSI without a showing of probable cause renders the statute constitutionally suspect); see also Pineda-Moreno, 617 F.3d at 1126 (Kozinski, C.J., dissenting) (“There is something creepy and un-American about such clandestine and underhanded [continuous surveillance]---- Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we’re living in Oceania.”). As a result of such decisions, I believe that magistrate judges presented with ex parte requests for authority to deploy various forms of warrantless location-tracking must carefully reexamine the constitutionality of such investigative techniques, and that it is no longer enough to dismiss the need for such analysis by relying on cases such as Knotts or, as discussed below, Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979) (<HOLDING>). For the reasons discussed below, I now 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendant lacked reasonable expectation of privacy in phone and fax numbers dialed (B) holding that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone booth (C) holding that a customer has no reasonable expectation of privacy in dialed telephone numbers which were conveyed to the telephone company (D) holding that telephone users have no expectation of privacy in dialed telephone numbers because they voluntarily expose such information to the service provider (E) holding that computer users do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their bulletin board subscriber information because they have conveyed it to another person
Output (English): holding that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone booth