In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Boucher
United States District Court for the District of Vermont
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13006 (2009)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Sebastien Boucher (defendant) entered the United States from Canada. A customs inspector searched Boucher’s laptop and found file names suggestive of pornography. An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent examined the laptop and saw adult and child pornography. The agent could not open one file with a name indicating child pornography. When asked about the file, Boucher said he transferred downloaded pornographic files from his desktop to his laptop but deleted files containing child pornography. The agent asked Boucher to show him where the files were located. Boucher navigated to his laptop’s Z drive. The agent found pornographic files on the drive, arrested Boucher, and obtained a search warrant for the laptop. The government (plaintiff) could not open the Z drive because it was encrypted and required a password for access. A grand-jury subpoena for the laptop’s passwords was quashed because it violated Boucher’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. On appeal, the government indicated it wanted Boucher to provide an unencrypted version of the drive by opening it before the grand jury. The government maintained it could link Boucher to the computer and encrypted drive without using Boucher’s act of producing the unencrypted version as evidence of authentication.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sessions, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,600 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.