PDF Archive search engine
Last database update: 17 October at 15:17 - Around 76000 files indexed.

Show results per page

Results for «warrant»:

Total: 500 results - 0.067 seconds

TaupierEdward AttyMotionWD 011916 100%

CR14-0675616-T, the undersigned filed a written motion and memorandum, dated March 4, 2015, to suppress evidence of firearms and ammunition seized on August 29, 2014, from Taupier’s Cromwell residence pursuant to one warrant and later seized from the Connecticut State Police (CSP) pursuant to a another warrant.


14-2985 complete opn 97%

14‐2985  Microsoft v. United States    United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT  ______________     August Term, 2015    Argued: September 9, 2015          Decided:  July 14, 2016    Docket No. 14‐2985    ______________     In the Matter of a Warrant to Search a Certain E‐Mail  Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft  Corporation  ______________     MICROSOFT CORPORATION,      – v. –     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,        ______________   Appellant,  Appellee.  B  e  f  o  r  e :        LYNCH and CARNEY, Circuit Judges, and BOLDEN, District Judge.*    ______________     Microsoft Corporation appeals from orders of the United States District Court for  the Southern District of New York (1) denying Microsoft’s motion to quash a warrant  (“Warrant”) issued under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq., to  the extent that the orders required Microsoft to produce the contents of a customer’s e‐ mail account stored on a server located outside the United States, and (2) holding  Microsoft in civil contempt of court for its failure to comply with the Warrant.  We  *The Honorable Victor A. Bolden, of the United States District Court for the District of  Connecticut, sitting by designation.  conclude that § 2703 of the Stored Communications Act does not authorize courts to  issue and enforce against U.S.‐based service providers warrants for the seizure of  customer e‐mail content that is stored exclusively on foreign servers.    REVERSED, VACATED, AND REMANDED.     Judge Lynch concurs in a separate opinion.  ______________    E. JOSHUA ROSENKRANZ, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP  (Robert M. Loeb and Brian P. Goldman, Orrick,  Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, NY; Guy  Petrillo, Petrillo Klein & Boxer LLP, New York, NY;  James M. Garland and Alexander A. Berengaut,  Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC; Bradford  L. Smith, David M. Howard, John Frank, Jonathan  Palmer, and Nathaniel Jones, Microsoft Corp.,  Redmond, WA; on the brief), for Microsoft Corporation.     JUSTIN ANDERSON, Assistant United States Attorney (Serrin  Turner, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief),  for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the  Southern District of New York, New York, NY.     Brett J. Williamson, David K. Lukmire, Nate Asher,  O’Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, NY; Faiza Patel,  Michael Price, Brennan Center for Justice, New York,  NY; Hanni Fakhoury, Electronic Frontier Foundation,  San Francisco, CA; Alex Abdo, American Civil  Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY; for Amici  Curiae Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of  Law, American Civil Liberties Union, The  Constitution Project, and Electronic Frontier  Foundation, in support of Appellant.    Kenneth M. Dreifach, Marc J. Zwillinger, Zwillgen PLLC,  New York, NY and Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae  Apple, Inc., in support of Appellant.    2    Andrew J. Pincus, Paul W. Hughes, James F. Tierney, Mayer  Brown LLP, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae BSA |  The Software Alliance, Center for Democracy and  Technology, Chamber of Commerce of the United  States, The National Association of Manufacturers,  and ACT | The App Association, in support of  Appellant.    Steven A. Engel, Dechert LLP, New York, NY, for Amicus  Curiae Anthony J. Colangelo, in support of Appellant.    Alan C. Raul, Kwaku A. Akowuah, Sidley Austin LLP,  Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae AT&T Corp.,  Rackspace US, Inc., Computer & Communications  Industry Association, i2 Coalition, and Application  Developers Alliance, in support of Appellant.    Peter D. Stergios, Charles D. Ray, McCarter & English, LLP,  New York, NY and Hartford, CT, for Amicus Curiae  Ireland.    Peter Karanjia, Eric J. Feder, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP,  New York, NY, for Amici Curiae, Inc.,  and Accenture PLC, in support of Appellant.    Michael Vatis, Jeffrey A. Novack, Steptoe & Johnson LLP,  New York, NY;  Randal S. Milch, Verizon  Communications Inc., New York, NY; Kristofor T.  Henning, Hewlett‐Packard Co., Wayne, PA; Amy  Weaver, Daniel Reed,, Inc., San  Francisco, CA; Orin Snyder, Thomas G. Hungar,  Alexander H. Southwell, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher  LLP, New York, NY; Mark Chandler, Cisco Systems,  Inc., San Jose, CA; Aaron Johnson, eBay Inc., San Jose,  CA, for Amici Curiae Verizon Communications, Inc.,  Cisco Systems, Inc., Hewlett‐Packard Co., eBay Inc.,, Inc., and Infor, in support of Appellant.    3    Laura R. Handman, Alison Schary, Davis Wright Tremaine  LLP, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae Media  Organizations, in support of Appellant.    Philip Warrick, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Portland, OR, for  Amici Curiae Computer and Data Science Experts, in  support of Appellant.    Owen C. Pell, Ian S. Forrester, Q.C., Paige C. Spencer, White  & Case, New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae Jan Philipp  Albrecht, Member of the European Parliament, in  support of Appellant.    Owen C. Pell, Ian S. Forrester, Q.C., Paige C. Spencer, White  & Case, New York, NY; Edward McGarr, Simon  McGarr, Dervila McGarr, McGarr Solicitors, Dublin,  Ireland, for Amicus Curiae Jan Philipp Albrecht,  Member of the European Parliament, in support of  Appellant.  ______________  SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judge:    Microsoft Corporation appeals from orders of the United States District Court for  the Southern District of New York denying its motion to quash a warrant (“Warrant”)  issued under § 2703 of the Stored Communications Act (“SCA” or the “Act”), 18 U.S.C.  §§ 2701 et seq., and holding Microsoft in contempt of court for refusing to execute the  Warrant on the government’s behalf.  The Warrant directed Microsoft to seize and  produce the contents of an e‐mail account that it maintains for a customer who uses the  company’s electronic communications services.  A United States magistrate judge  (Francis, M.J.) issued the Warrant on the government’s application, having found  probable cause to believe that the account was being used in furtherance of narcotics    4  trafficking.  The Warrant was then served on Microsoft at its headquarters in Redmond,  Washington.   Microsoft produced its customer’s non‐content information to the government,  as directed.  That data was stored in the United States.  But Microsoft ascertained that,  to comply fully with the Warrant, it would need to access customer content that it stores  and maintains in Ireland and to import that data into the United States for delivery to  federal authorities.  It declined to do so.  Instead, it moved to quash the Warrant.  The  magistrate judge, affirmed by the District Court (Preska, C.J.), denied the motion to  quash and, in due course, the District Court held Microsoft in civil contempt for its  failure.   Microsoft and the government dispute the nature and reach of the Warrant that  the Act authorized and the extent of Microsoft’s obligations under the instrument.  For  its part, Microsoft emphasizes Congress’s use in the Act of the term “warrant” to  identify the authorized instrument.  Warrants traditionally carry territorial limitations:   United States law enforcement officers may be directed by a court‐issued warrant to  seize items at locations in the United States and in United States‐controlled areas, see  Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(b), but their authority generally does not extend further.   The government, on the other hand, characterizes the dispute as merely about  “compelled disclosure,” regardless of the label appearing on the instrument.  It  maintains that “similar to a subpoena, [an SCA warrant] requir[es] the recipient to  deliver records, physical objects, and other materials to the government” no matter  where those documents are located, so long as they are subject to the recipient’s custody  or control.  Gov’t Br. at 6.  It relies on a collection of court rulings construing properly‐ served subpoenas as imposing that broad obligation to produce without regard to a  document’s location.  E.g., Marc Rich & Co., A.G. v. United States, 707 F.2d 663 (2d Cir.  1983).           5


OCC-REQ-FY2015 94%

(304) 558-5200 Pursuant to West Virginia Code 99 7-22-13 and 11-IO-lla(d), the Board of the Fort Henry Economic Opportunity Development District hereby requests the State Auditor to issue a warrant on the State Treasurer from the Fort Henry Economic Opportunity Development District Subaccount in the Economic Opportunity Development District Fund.


oc training bulletin bellevue 90%

The court also found as the officer testified that Crabbs had waved the tazer at him in a threatening manner, thus manifesting an intent to intimidate or warrant alarm for the officer's safety.



.i Arrest Warrant Application, August 29, 2014 .


open carry training bulletins washington 82%

The court also found as the officer testified that Crabbs had waved the tazer at him in a threatening manner, thus manifesting an intent to intimidate or warrant alarm for the officer's safety.


titles foreign [1] 81%

Similarly, if an alien who uses a foreign title enquires about becoming naturalised and appears to be residentially qualified, the answer to his enquiry should include a warning about the use of his title if naturalisation is granted and a request for a letter confirming that he accepts the position ANNEX – ROYAL WARRANTS PRESENT HOLDER Walter Guy Bentinck Henry Robert Visart de Bury Richard Frederick John Donough Le Poer Trench, Earl of Clancarty Thomas Francis Fremantle, Lord Cottesloe Sir Robert William Charlier Dillon, Baronet Thomas Edward Dimsdale Elbert Adrian William de Hochepied Larpent Oliver George Paul Louis Gordon de Reuter Lionel Walter, Lord Rothschild John Frederick Foley de Rutzen Geoffrey Fitzherbert Foley de Teissier Arthur Charles Wellesley, Duke of Wellington Sir John Francis Charles de Salis, K.C.M.G John Eugene de Salis DIGNITY Baron of the Kingdom of the Netherlands Count of Austria TITLE Baron Bentinck DATE OF WARRANT 12.9.1911 Count de Bury and de Bocarme Marquis of Heusden 19.11.1910 Baron of Austria Baron Fremantle 22.1.1822 Baron of the Holy Roman Empire Baron in Russia Baron and Magnet of Hungary Baron Dillon 24.4.1800 Baron Dimsdale Baron de Hochepied 29.7.1813 27.9.1819 Baron in Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Baron of Austria Baron of the Kingdom of Poland Baron of the Kingdom of France Count in Portugal Baron de Reuter 6.11.1891 Baron de Rothschild Baron de Rutzen 16.6.1938 23.5.1918 Baron de Teissier 16.9.1905 Conde de Vimiera 18.10.1811 Count of the Holy Roman Empire Count of the Holy Roman Empire Count de Salis 4.4.1809 Count John de Salis 4.4.1809 Marquis of the Kingdom of the Netherlands SON OF HOLDER Walter Thomas Bernard Ramsey Bentinck GRANDSON OF HOLDER John Walgrave Halford Fremantle John Tapling Fremantle 16.8.1824 Ivor Geoffrey Dykes de Teissier Arthur Charles Wellesley, Marquess Douro Henry Valerian George Wellesley Earl of Mornington ANNRX PRESENT HOLDER Anthony Denis Rodolph de Salis Helen Clare de Salis Joan Mary de Salis Charles John de Salis Peter Francis de Salis William Frederick Charles Henry Bentinck Charles Henry Bentinck Arthur William Douglas Bentinck Norah Ida Emily Bentinck Henrietta Eliza Gathcart Bentinck Victoria Mary Frederica Mechtild Bentinck Ursula Victoria Henrietta Bentinck Naomi Mechtild Henrietta Bentinck Brydgytte Blanch Bentinck Henry Noel Bentinck Sophy Mechtild Mary Bentinck Isabelle Adrienne Bentinck DIGNITY Count of the Holy Roman Empire Countess of the Holy Roman Empire Countess of the Holy Roman Empire Count of the Holy Roman Empire Count of the Holy Roman Empire Count of the Holy Roman Empire Count of the Holy Roman Empire Count of the Holy Roman Empire Countess of the Holy Roman Empire Countess of the Holy Roman Empire Countess of the Holy Roman Empire Countess of the Holy Roman Empire Countess of the Holy Roman Empire Countess of the Holy Roman Empire Count of the Holy Roman Empire Count of the Holy Roman Empire Count of the Holy Roman Empire TITLE Count Anthony de Salis DATE OF WARRANT 4.4.1809 Countess Helen de Salis 4.4.1809 Countess Joan de Salis 4.4.1809 Count Charles de Salis 4.4.1809 Count Peter de Salis 4.4.1809 Count Bentinck 22.4.1886 Count Charles Bentinck 22.4.1886 Count Arthur Bentinck 22.4.1886 Countess Robert Bentinck 22.4.1886 Countess Henry Bentinck 22.4.1886 Countess Victoria Bentinck 22.4.1886 Countess Ursula Bentinck 22.4.1886 Countess Naomi Bentinck 22.4.1886 Countess Brydgytte Bentinck 22.4.1886 Count Henry Bentinck 22.4.1886 Countess Sophy Bentinck 22.4.1886 Countess Isabelle Bentinck 22.4.1886 SON OF HOLDER GRANDSON OF HOLDER


11517 Cumpston #3, North Hollywood, CA 91601 B 81%

right, and lawful authority to grant the Property as provided in this Deed of Trust, and (d) Trustor will forever warrant and defend the grant made in this Deed of Trust against all claims and demands, except as are specifically set forth in this Deed of Trust.


OperationFlickerReportsJuly2010pdf 80%

The review/analysis ofthe computer will be conducted by S search warrant is issued by the U.S.


nscta 79%

You hereby warrant that this Article is an original work, has not been published before and is not being considered for publication elsewhere in its final form either in printed or electronic form;


SMCR013495 79%

Incident Date or Low Range Yes 09/20/2017 Upper Date Range Incident Time or Low Range Upper Time Range 00:07 STATUS OF OFFENDER/JUVENILE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY CUSTODY SUMMONS TO APPEAR 1 - Jailed (Citation Issued) WARRANT REQUESTED NO CONTACT ORDER RELEASED TO REQUESTED PARENT/GUARDIAN NARRATIVE Narrative of Offense Committed On or about the above stated date and time, the Defendant did knowingly resist or obstruct ___, known to be a peace officer, emergency medical care provider or fire fighter, or a person performing bailiff duties pursuant to section 602.1303, subsection 4 in the performance of his or her lawful duty AFFIDAVIT STATE OF IOWA, SAC COUNTY I, the undersigned, being duly sworn, state that all facts contained in this Complaint and Affidavit, known by me or told to me by other reliable persons form the basis for my belief that the defendant committed this crime State all facts and persons relied upon supporting elements of alleged crime On September 19, 2017 at approximately 2357hrs I was notified of an individual who had active Warrants out of Buena Vista County.


Onga Great White Cleaner Owners Manual 78%

Pentair Water does not warrant that spare parts will be made available for the whole of the reasonable period and reserves its right to cease supplying spare parts or providing facilities for repair of spare parts in circumstances which are beyond its control including the requirement to remove spare parts from sale as a consequence of changes in the law or otherwise as it deems fit.


www-cleandpfexhaust-com 78%

Call for Free Pick-Up Today!


TaupierEdward AttyRachelBaird BriefPO 102414 2 78%

The affiants to the arrest warrant summarized the case:


petition docs 77%

yh o seq., by denying his requests for copies of property seized pursuant to a search warrant in 5.


Know Your Rights 77%

and no warrant shall issue, except upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.” II.



06/18/2012 Order - Failure to Appear Warrant Judicial Officer Matyas, Cindee S Comment 06/18/2012 Warrant - Failure to Appear Judicial Officer Matyas, Cindee S Comment Comment:


TG 75%

The burglary arrest warrant indicates theft was not the motive for the burglary Duke is alleged to have committed.


British Borders Community Act June 2016 75%

In order to acquire a warrant, sufficient evidence must be provided by the raiding party.


oc training bulletin everett 74%

Training Bulletin 2007-06 Date: March 13, 2007 To:


20120409E 74%

However, law enforcement officers do not need your consent if they have a search warrant.


FSKissingSelfieContest Terms&Conditions 71%

You warrant that you have the full authority to grant these rights.