From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 95 00:54:29 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Is there a lawyer in the house?
In-Reply-To: <30C7C407.4117@netscape.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951208035312.18878E-100000-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, Jeff Weinstein wrote:

> Black Unicorn wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, sameer wrote:
> > 
> > > > > You mean if you give me your key the police can get it from me without a
> > > > > warrant? What if I don't want to give it up, and you don't? How would the
> > > > > police get it without a warrant?
> > > >
> > > > Yes.  Unless it could be shown there their was an expactation of privacy
> > > > in the transfer, or that there was an understanding that you intended this
> > > > to be a confidential matter.  Or in the alternative, that the
> > >
> > >       I do not understand.
> > >
> > > Alice has Alice gives Bob her key.  Cop wants Alice's key.  Cop tells
> > > Bob "I want Alice's key, you need to give it to me. I don't have a
> > > warrant."
> > >
> > > How is this different from
> > > Bob has key. Cop want's Bob's key. Cop tells Bob "I want your key,
> > > you need to give it to me. I don't have a warrant."
> > 
> > The real concern is this:
> > 
> > Bob gives his key to alice.
> > 
> > The cops walk into alice's place and 'convince' alice to turn the key
> > over whithout a warant.  Perhaps alice is more susceptible to
> > persuasion because of some external reasons.  Alice does, Bob has no privacy
> > interest in the key, Bob can no longer argue that it is protected under
> > the 4th amendment.
> > 
> > Now let's get more sinister.
> > 
> > The cops mysteriously 'find' the key somewhere without a warrant.
> > Bob cannot argue that the key should be surpressed on the basis of the
> > 4th amendment because he gave it to Alice, and thus clearly it's not
> > information he was interested in protecting.  (This is assuming the cops
> > didn't violate other areas, or break into a house or something, or that
> > if they did, that the court will find out about it).
> 
>   How about if Bob had a contractual agreement with Alice to keep his
> key secret?

Then as a defense attorney, I would argue that Bob had an obvious 
expectation of privacy with Alice, and that the fact that he relayed this 
key to Alice only under those circumstances represents a definite 
expression of his intent to keep the key private, thus triggering 4th 
amendment protections.  My view is that this would be a very strong argument.

Note that this is an academic opinion, not a legal one as I am not being 
paid.

>
> 	--Jeff
> 
> -- 
> Jeff Weinstein - Electronic Munitions Specialist
> Netscape Communication Corporation
> jsw@netscape.com - http://home.netscape.com/people/jsw
> Any opinions expressed above are mine.

---
My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information