93 So. 3d 657 - State v. Daigle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Federal courts have examined the issues presented in Defendant’s appeal and have determined that defendants have no Fourth Amendment privacy rights in computer files that they have shared on file sharing networks such as Gnutella regardless of whether the defendants have logged onto the | ^Gnutella network through clients such as Lime[W]ire, Morpheus, BearShare, or Shareaza. See United States v. Gabel, 2010 WL 3927697 (S.D.Fla.2010); United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 842 (8th Cir.2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 915 , 130 S.Ct. 1309 , 175 L.Ed.2d 1093 (2010); U.S. v. Ganoe, 538 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2037 , 173 L.Ed.2d 1122 (2009).... This is equally true if the investigating law enforcement officer uses software specially modified to screen for child pornography, such as ShareazaLE or the Wyoming Tool Kit, provided that the software has no greater access to the defendants’ computer files than that available to any other Gnutella client. Gabel, 2010 WL 3927697 ; United States v. Borowy, 595 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir.2010) [per curiam], cert. denied, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 795 , 178 L.Ed.2d 533 (2010).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 111 So. 3d 1095 - State v. Dunham