Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/217716167/Alonso-Saylor-vs-Battle-Creek
Timestamp: 2018-02-24 22:06:08
Document Index: 349276166

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2703', '§ 2703', '§ 2707', '§ 2703', '§ 2703', '§ 2703', '§ 2707', '§ 2703']

Alonso & Saylor vs. Battle Creek | Search And Seizure | Fourth Amendment To The United States Constitution
Description: Lawsuit against city of Battle Creek filed by police department employees Jim Saylor and Maria Alonso.
Lawsuit against city of Battle Creek filed by police department employees Jim Saylor and Maria Alonso.
Case 1:14-cv-00400 Doc #3 Filed 04/11/14 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#27
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MARIA ALONSO and JAMES SAYLOR CITY OF BATTLE CREEK, DAVID WALTERS, SUSAN BEDSOLE and JAMES BLOCKER, Jointly and severally vs. Plaintiffs Case No. 14-400 Hon.
Defendants. _______________________________________________________________________________________/ Pitt, McGehee, Palmer & Rivers PC Michael L. Pitt P-24429 Attorney for Plaintiff 117 West Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, Michigan 48067 (248) 398-9800 (phone) (248) 398-9804 (facsimile) mpitt@pittlawpc.com _____________________________________________________________________________________ / PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED TO APPLE, INC.
this court pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 45 for an order quashing the subpoena issued to Apple without a search warrant. In support of this motion, Plaintiff states as follows:
Plaintiffs, Maria Alonso and James Saylor, by and through counsel, move
Case 1:14-cv-00400 Doc #3 Filed 04/11/14 Page 2 of 8 Page ID#28
Apple requiring production on April 7, 2014 subpoena. 3. 2.
information relating to plaintiffs’ personal electronic files maintained by
judicial third party administrative subpoena to Apple, Inc. for production of
On March 25, 2014, the City of Battle Creek (“City”) issued a non-
The City did not provide notice to plaintiffs of the issuance of the Plaintiffs received notice of the issuance of the subpoena from Plaintiffs’ counsel expressed the opinion to both Apple and the
Apple, which sent plaintiffs an email on Friday April 4, 2014. 4.
City that the City, as a governmental entity, is required to obtain a search turned over by Apple to the City. See, 18 U.S.C. § 2703. 5. 6.
warrant before the information about plaintiffs personal accounts could be The City has not secured a search warrant in this matter.
has instructed Apple to honor this non-judicial administrative subpoena. plaintiffs if a motion to quash is filed with the court. 7.
The City has disagreed with plaintiffs’ counsel’s assessment and
Apple has agreed to hold production of the personal information about Plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit against the City and has alleged a
violation 18 U.S.C. § 2703 and seeks relief as provided for in 18 U.S.C. § 2707.
Case 1:14-cv-00400 Doc #3 Filed 04/11/14 Page 3 of 8 Page ID#29
responding to the non-judicial third party administrative subpoena.
Accordingly, plaintiffs request that Apple be enjoined by this court from
By: /s/Michael L. Pitt P22429 Michael L. Pitt P-24429 Attorney for Plaintiff 117 West Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, Michigan 48067 (248) 398-9800 (phone) (248) 398-9804 (facsimile) mpitt@pittlawpc.com
Pitt, McGhee, Palmer & Rivers PC
Case 1:14-cv-00400 Doc #3 Filed 04/11/14 Page 4 of 8 Page ID#30
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MARIA ALONSO and JAMES SAYLOR, CITY OF BATTLE CREEK, DAVID WALTERS, SUSAN BEDSOLE and JAMES BLOCKER, Jointly and severally vs. Plaintiffs Case No.14-400 Hon.
Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________________________/ Pitt, McGehee, Palmer & Rivers PC Michael L. Pitt P-24429 Attorney for Plaintiff 117 West Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, Michigan 48067 (248) 398-9800 (phone) (248) 398-9804 (facsimile) mpitt@pittlawpc.com ____________________________________ / BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED TO APPLE, INC.
Case 1:14-cv-00400 Doc #3 Filed 04/11/14 Page 5 of 8 Page ID#31
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY 18 U.S.C. §§ 2703 and 2707…………………………………………………………………….6, 7
Rule 45(d)(3)……………………………………………………………………………………………..6
Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution…………………………………..7
Case 1:14-cv-00400 Doc #3 Filed 04/11/14 Page 6 of 8 Page ID#32
STATEMENT OF FACTS On March 25, 2014, the City of Battle Creek (“City”) issued a non-judicial
third party administrative subpoena to Apple, Inc. for production of information relating to plaintiffs personal electronic files maintained by Apple requiring production on April 7, 2014 subpoena.
The City did not provide notice to plaintiffs of the issuance of the Plaintiffs received notice of the issuance of the subpoena from Apple Plaintiffs’ counsel expressed the opinion to both Apple and the City that
which sent to plaintiffs by email on Friday April 4, 2014.
the City, as a governmental entity, is required to obtain a search warrant before the information about plaintiffs personal accounts could be turned over by Apple to the City. See 18 U.S.C. § 2703. The City has not secured a search warrant in this matter.
instructed Apple to honor this non-judicial administrative subpoena. Apple has agreed to hold production of the personal information about plaintiffs if a motion to quash is filed with the court.
The City has disagreed with plaintiffs’ counsel’ assessment and has
18 U.S.C. § 2703 and seek injunctive relief as provided for in 18 U.S.C. § 2707.
Plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit against the City and has alleged a violation
Case 1:14-cv-00400 Doc #3 Filed 04/11/14 Page 7 of 8 Page ID#33
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO QUASH SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE THE CITY HAS FAILED TO SECURE THE REQUIRED SEARCH WARRANT Plaintiffs are protected by the Fourth Amendment prohibition against
unreasonable searches and seizures of their private accounts. Congress has access to the private and personal electronic accounts maintained by an electronic service provider like Apple. 18 U.S. C. § 2703. of personal account information maintained by Apple.
required a governmental entity to secure a search warrant if it wishes to gain
It is undisputed that no search warrant was issued here for the release Rule 45 (d) (3) (B) authorizes a person “affected” by the disclosure of
information based on the return on a subpoena to move to quash the information and an order quashing the subpoena is justified.
subpoena. Here plaintiffs are directly affected by the release of personal Accordingly, plaintiffs request an order quashing the March 25, 2014
subpoena and enjoining Apple from releasing the information from plaintiffs’ personal accounts unless a proper search warrant is first obtained by the City. By: /s/Michael L. Pitt P22429 Michael L. Pitt P-24429 Attorney for Plaintiff 117 West Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, Michigan 48067 (248) 398-9800 (phone) mpitt@pittlawpc.com
Case 1:14-cv-00400 Doc #3 Filed 04/11/14 Page 8 of 8 Page ID#34
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing instrument was filed with the U.S. District Court through the ECF filing system and that all parties to the above cause was served via the ECF filing system on April 11, 2014. Signature:__/s/ Regina Bell___ 117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, Michigan 48067 (248) 398-9800 rbell@pittlawpc.com
Documents Similar To Alonso & Saylor vs. Battle Creek
Communication and Corespondence Vs
United States v. Green, 10th Cir. (1999)
Cronin and Fullerton v. Peterson Lawsuit
11-20884-CV0.wpd
United States v. Mabry, 10th Cir. (2013)
Veroy Case
Buncombe County procurement cardholders
Riceville Volunteer Fire Department news release
Buncombe purchasing card policy
Riceville Board of Directors press release
Jonas Gerard statement
Billy Graham motorcade routes
Buncombe County Board of Commissioners action steps
Grand Bohemian guest list
Commissioners NCCCMA statement
Billy Graham motorcade schedule
Alonso & Saylor vs. Battle Creek will be available on