This is a big win. If you read between the lines, it could also be used as an argument to dismantle the Third Party Doctrine [1]. Just because you give your data to a third party does not mean that the data "isn't yours" and they can take it and use it as they please (including the government). People using third party services should and do have an expectation of privacy (such as when using e-mail, chats, etc).

A "4th Amendment warrant" (to distinguish it from the extra-constitutional 3-months long FISA general "warrant") should be required for all content requests and the vast majority of metadata requests.

Congrats to ACLU, they've been having a winning streak lately in such cases.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

It's also important to recognize that "the reasonable expectation of privacy" can refer not only to expectations about the effect of physical barriers to legal intrusion (e.g. curtains), but reasonable expectations about what is systemically necessary for a democracy to survive.

Democracy is not magic, and it can be easily broken. The reasonable expectation that the people who are sworn to protect and uphold it won't actively undermine the system means I can reasonably expect privacy in a wide variety of situations where it's technically possible to eliminate it.

After all, we don't "limit" the houses that the police can search to those they can physically invade. In reality, they have the material capacity to walk into nearly any space they like. Indeed, this is why we have an additional layer of laws to constrain them, as physical barriers obviously aren't enough.

In other words, saying "You have no reasonable expectation that third parties won't freely share everything they know about you with the police because technology" is as stupid as it is dangerous. It is also demonstrably wrong. And when it comes to public officials sworn to uphold constitutionally protected liberties, it is reasonable to expect that they will adhere to both the letter and the spirit of the law because that's what the continued existence of a democratic republic depends on.

The truly unreasonable thing is believing this isn't the case.

Exactly: Your rights with "reasonable expectation" aren't just from some sort of technology/impossibility judgment, it also includes your expectations about how the third-party behaves.

Even moreso because they ascribe the right to get this information because "it's not covered by this thing we made up," the Third Party Doctrine.

I wouldn't count on the US Supreme Court to agree.

For example they have ruled that it's OK for the govt to pick thru garbage you have left out on the curb. It's probably a crime for some random person to rummage thru your garbage picking out bottles and cans to recycle, but it's OK for the FBI to carefully scrutinize every scrap of paper (or drugs etc) that you threw out.

To me the garbage thing is a perfect "third party" situation, especially where I live (garbage collection is done by private parties). In locations where "the city" picks up your garbage one can perhaps argue that you're already giving it to a government agency.

The trick is to get the Supreme Court to set the legal precedent that throwing a document in the trash, and throwing a document in Dropbox are not the same thing.

I was not surprised by the ruling on garbage at the curb. When you put something out into the public, it's fair game. I am ok with the court drawing the line where private property stops.

But I don't see any reason that data should be subject to the same doctrine as trash.

> When you put something out into the public, it's fair game

I disagree with this. In my situation my garbage pickup is done by a private company. What gives you or the FBI the right to rummage thru my garbage which I have left out for the private company to dispose of?

Let's turn it around. Let's say that Amazon, a private company, delivers a package to me, but I'm not home. Do you (or the FBI) have a right to paw thru the contents just because it was left on my doorstep?

What about if the US Postal Service (an agency of the federal government) leaves a package on my doorstep? Is it OK for the FBI to paw thru it?

Edit: to add to this, what about if my garbage isn't out at the curb of the street, but instead is in my driveway or sidewalk, on my private property? Is keeping the garbage can a few feet from the street enough to keep my privacy rights intact? In many cities garbage pickup is done from the sidewalk, not from the street. And I know it's private property, based on how many "slip and slide" lawsuits get filed against private homeowners.

It's pretty hilarious how copy protection and DMCA can coexist with the Third Party Doctrine.

This is indeed a big win. I presume Florida will file for appeal and there will be more to watch.

This was at the Florida Supreme Court so that's the end for this one. But it will be interesting to see what happens in other jurisdictions.

No, it might not be the end. From the linked article:

   The ruling constitutes the first time
   that a state court has reached this finding
   under the Fourth Amendment

The US Supreme Court trumps any state court when it comes to interpreting the US Constitution. So this ruling could still be appealed and reversed.

Reminder: If you haven't already, please sign up for at least a $10/mo recurring donation to the ACLU.

https://www.aclu.org/donate/join-renew-give

These court battles are necessary to protect our civil liberties, and they cost money.