Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf
Page Number: 8

4 

VAN BUREN v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

license plate for Albo violated the “exceeds authorized ac-
cess” clause of 18 U. S. C. §1030(a)(2).1  The trial evidence 
showed that Van Buren had been trained not to use the law 
enforcement database for “an improper purpose,” defined as
“any  personal  use.”  App.  17.    Van  Buren  therefore  knew 
that the search breached department policy.  And according
to the Government, that violation of department policy also 
violated the CFAA.  Consistent with that position, the Gov-
ernment told the jury that Van Buren’s access of the data-
base  “for  a  non[- ]law[-]enforcement  purpose”  violated  the
CFAA  “concept”  against  “using”  a  computer  network  in  a 
way contrary to “what your job or policy prohibits.”  Id., at 
39.  The jury convicted Van Buren, and the District Court
sentenced him to 18 months in prison.

Van  Buren  appealed  to  the  Eleventh  Circuit,  arguing
that the “exceeds authorized access” clause applies only to
those who obtain information to which their computer ac-
cess does not extend, not to those who misuse access that 
they otherwise have.  While several Circuits see the clause 
Van Buren’s way, the Eleventh Circuit is among those that
have  taken  a  broader  view.2   Consistent  with  its  Circuit 
precedent, the panel held that Van Buren had violated the
CFAA  by  accessing  the  law  enforcement  database  for  an
“inappropriate reason.”  940 F. 3d 1192, 1208 (2019).  We 

—————— 

1 Van  Buren  also  was  charged  with  and  convicted  of  honest-services 
wire fraud.  In a separate holding not at issue here, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated Van Buren’s honest-
services fraud conviction as contrary to this Court’s decision in McDon-
nell v. United States, 579 U. S. 550 (2016). 

2 Compare Royal Truck & Trailer Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Kraft, 974 F. 3d 
756 (CA6 2020); United States v. Valle, 807 F. 3d 508 (CA2 2015); WEC 
Carolina  Energy  Solutions  LLC  v.  Miller,  687  F. 3d  199  (CA4  2012); 
United States v. Nosal, 676 F. 3d 854 (CA9 2012) (en banc), with United 
States v. Rodriguez, 628 F. 3d 1258 (CA11 2010); United States v. John, 
597 F. 3d 263 (CA5 2010); International Airport Centers, L.L.C. v. Citrin, 
440 F. 3d 418 (CA7 2006); EF Cultural Travel BV v. Explorica, Inc., 274 
F. 3d 577 (CA1 2001).