Source: https://vi.scribd.com/doc/301280124/Apple-New-York-2-29-16
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 19:50:40+00:00

Document:
IN RE ORDER REQUIRING APPLE, INC.
the obligation to assist the government's investigation against its will. I therefore deny the motion.
with unnamed others, of conspiracy to traffic in methamphetamine. See Yang, DE 47 2.
(government's post-hearing supplemental memorandum dated Oct. 28, 2015) ("Govt. III").
The DEA agents never returned the warrant with the inventory of seized items as required. See Fed.
codefendants fell within that period, and thus seems likely to have been the date of the search as well.
this warrant set a two-week time limit on its execution. Id.
in airplane mode. The [DEA] agents began that search but were unable to complete [it] because"
the iPhone's passcode security. Id. at 6-7; see also Govt. II at 5.
bearing on the technical issues pertinent to this matter.
warrant." Govt. I at 1.
complied with such orders." Id. at 2.
and, if so, what they found as a result.
available on the public docket. See Govt. II at 2 n.1 & Ex. A.
simultaneously denied the ACLU's motion to file an amicus brief. See Orders dated Oct. 20, 2015.
on October 28, 2015. See Govt. III; Apple III.
pleaded guilty pursuant to an agreement with the government. See Yang, Scheduling Order dated Oct.
plea, no longer requests expedited treatment." DE 22.
directed the government to explain why the Application was not moot. Order dated Oct. 30, 2015.
government's submission about the procedural viability of the Application in light of Feng's plea.
U.S. 159, 190 n.6 (1977)).
country from October 8, 2015 (the date of the instant Application) through February 9, 2016. Id. at 2.
devices; in each such case in which Apple has actually received a court order, Apple has objected. Id.
the requested assistance in any of them. Id. at 2-3.
the coconspirators, customers, and suppliers the government is pursuing, is ultimately of no moment.
objection from Apple. See Govt. II at 9-10.
to the principles and usages of law.
80 Pub. L. 772, 62 Stat. 683, 944 (June 25, 1948). A year later, Congress merely inserted the word "and"
cannot be concluded without the court first resolving the dispute arising under the AWA.
usages and principles of law.
(D.C. Cir. 1969); Paramount Film Distributing Corp. v. Civic Center Theatre, Inc., 333 F.2d 358, 360 (10th Cir.
replicate the second statutory element, despite the overlapping language).
See N.Y. Tel. Co., 434 U.S. at 174-78.
is available as a matter of law.
concurring in part and dissenting in part) (joining Part II of Justice Stevens' dissent).
enable him to effectively present his appeal which the court had jurisdiction to hear.
orders issued in Price and Harris were necessary to protect the rights of prisoners.
to order Apple to assist the government in executing a valid warrant to search Feng's device.
jurisdiction for purposes of the AWA.
I likewise readily conclude that the requested order to Apple is "necessary or appropriate"
historic aids is calculated in its sound judgment to achieve the ends of justice entrusted to it.'" N.Y. Tel.
appropriate" prong to which the Court directly relates it, is entirely misplaced. See Govt. III at 7.
otherwise proper exercise of federal courts' jurisdiction.") (quoting Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction v.
U.S. Marshals Serv., 474 U.S. 34, 41 (1985)).
explicitly or implicitly prohibited under a federal statute. See Govt. III at 7.
The acronym refers to the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, Pub. L. No.
103-414, 108 Stat. 4279, codified at 47 U.S.C. 1001-1010.
Apple that the statute does not affirmatively prescribe.
Information services; private networks and interconnection services and facilities.
carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the communication.
as Apple to provide the kind of assistance the government seeks here. See Govt. II at 22; Apple II at 5.
Apple's argument has more merit.
available, has also retained a decryption key for its own purposes that would allow such access.
when, presumably, such information would be "at rest" within the government's meaning).
communications service providers to render the assistance necessary to accomplish such interception).
Apple device, such as an iPhone[.] iTunes thus constitutes an "information service"
under CALEA by providing "a capability for acquiring, storing [and] retrieving .
drawn in such a way to exclude the relief the government seeks." Id. at 4.
To be sure, CALEA by itself has limits that render that one statute less than comprehensive.
"agreeable to the usages and principles of law."
or are of suspect constitutionality.
seizure warrants under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41.
interpretations of a statute that would render any phrase or provision superfluous") (citing TRW Inc. v.
Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001)).
agreeable not merely to some part of the entire body of law, but to the law's "usages" and "principles"
with but not duplicate federal statutes and rules adopted under 28 U.S.C. 2072 and 2075"); Fed.
adopted under 28 U.S.C. 2072 and 2075, and the district's local rules.").
preferred reading of the AWA does not permit that.
334 (1992) ("absurd results are to be avoided").
be drawn from such inaction." Zino Davidoff v. CVS, 571 F.3d 238, 243 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Cent.
interpret the AWA's "usages and principles of law" clause, but rather its "necessary or appropriate"
the ultimate absence of enacted legislation.
itself as well as the legislative history").
to judicial power to require" such assistance).
the proposed order could not fairly be described as agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
assistance to law enforcement that Congress had decided no longer to compel.
here is manifestly irreconcilable with the statute.
interpretation is so doubtful as to render it impermissible as a matter of statutory construction.
(quoting The Federalist No. 47, p. 324 (J. Cooke ed. 1961); case citations omitted).
encrypted products and services. However, the administration is not seeking legislation at this time.").
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, 785 F.3d 787, 808 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S.
That history includes the FBI's briefing of Congress in 2009 about the so-called "Going Dark"
the kind of assistance at issue here. See 2015 WL 5920207, at *1-3.
lead to the same result.
it appeared that the circumstances of this case are materially different. See 2015 WL 5920207, at *5.
criminal conduct to have any obligation to assist the DEA's investigation.
government's legal authority to surreptitiously intrude on personal privacy.
suggests that the "duty" to which the Court referred is legal rather than moral.
any affirmative action to hinder justice."
Govt. II at 11 (quoting N.Y. Tel. Co., 434 U.S. at 174).
More importantly, perhaps, it has not even done what the telephone company did in N.Y. Tel. Co.
manufacturing smartphones the extent to which it may install data security features on such devices.
perform their authorized surveillance on company property. See 434 U.S. at 162-63.
did not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S.
but I need not address such concerns to resolve the issue now before the court.
11-12, offer little if any useful guidance here. In two of the cases, lower courts simply followed N.Y.
circumstance wholly inapposite here, as Apple is not alleged to possess any evidence of Feng's crimes.
United States for an Order Directing X to Provide Access to Videotapes, 2003 WL 22053105, at *3 (D. Md. Aug.
22, 2003) (landlord ordered to provide access to security camera video recordings).
fairly raise such an objection. Before writing the Court's opinion in opinion in Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct.
JUSTICE ALITO: Now, this Court has held that the death penalty is constitutional.
Apple have "minimum contacts" although to what, the government does not say. See Govt. III at 6.
decree that had been in place for three years was threatened by collateral state lawsuits.
authority of the All Writs Act.
Nat'l Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. 138 Acres of Land in Vill. of Springville, Cty. of Erie, State of New York, 186 F.
Supp. 2d 339, 345 (W.D.N.Y. 2001).
ask this Court to overrule the death penalty.
for an order of compulsion. The possibility is anything but fanciful.
personal jurisdiction the "minimum contacts" standard. See id. (citing International Shoe Co. v.
minimal effort on the part of the Company and no disruption to its operations.
Id. at 174-75 (citations omitted).
"could threaten the trust between Apple and its customers and substantially tarnish the Apple brand."
information the government would compel it to use to provide the requested assistance at issue here.
let the government have the information necessary to do so.
with the public that is, with its potential customers should not be concerned about public relations.
best to accommodate competing legitimate interests.
American citizen or company would 'tarnish' that person's or company's reputation.").
matter how great, into meaningful consideration.
reputations or the ramifications of compliance[,]" id. at 19, is irreconcilable with the opinion in N.Y.
threat to the autonomy of third parties who for whatever reason prefer not to render such assistance."
impropriety in requiring civilian assistance under the All Writs Act.
than a legislature, to compel such assistance.
only financial burdens could prove unreasonable.
government cannot establish a lack of unreasonable burden.
government's Application would impose an unreasonable burden on Apple.
[T]he lack of a passcode is not fatal to the government's ability to obtain the records.
id. at 8 ("The government is not required to consult with intelligence agencies[.]").
passcode security on some Apple devices, if not the precise kind seized from Djibo. See United States v.
without risking such data destruction.
proposed method for Apple to use in bypassing passcode security on a device running iOS 9).
government expert makes the attempt.
the history recounted above undermines the government's assertion of necessity in a different way.
the government itself deems to be a necessity.
which is not directly implicated where, as here, it must give way to the mandate of a lawful warrant.
have about how to both embrace the technology we love and get the safety we need.
reasons set forth above, I conclude that it does not. The government's motion is denied.
the executive branch authority it fails to secure from the legislature.

References: v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.