In the Supreme Court of the United States

1 In the Supreme Court of the United StatesIn the Supreme Court of the United StatesIn the Supreme Court of the United StatesIn the Supreme Court of the United StatesIn the Supreme Court of the United StatesUNITED States OF AMERICA,Petitioner, CORPORATION, Writ of Certiorari to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second CircuitBRIEF OF THE council OF BARS AND LAWSOCIETIES OF europe AS AMICUS CURIAEIN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTB ecker Gallagher Cincinnati, OH Washington, D. BAMBERGER Counsel of RecordBRANDON N.

2 ADKINSMELISSA GOHLKECLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP2000 Pennsylvania Ave NWWashington, 20006(202) for Amicus CuriaeNO. 17-2iCORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENTThe council of Bars and Law Societies of europe isan international non-profit association. It has nocorporate parent, and no publicly held company hasany ownership interest in OF CONTENTSCORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .. iTABLE OF AUTHORITIES .. ivINTERESTS OF AMICUS 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .. 2 ARGUMENT .. Government s Interpretation Of Section2703 Would Authorize ExtraterritorialSearches In Conflict With The DomesticLaws Of Nations Around The World.

3 6A. The Government s Argument IgnoresIncreasing Regulation Regarding TheUse, Transfer, And Disclosure OfPersonal And Other Information In OtherCountries .. 7B. The Government s Position Affords NoMeaningful Consideration To ForeignLaw Concerning Legal Privilege AndProfessional Secrecy .. 15C. The Presumption Against ExtraterritorialityAnd The Charming Betsy Doctrine Favor AnInterpretation of Section 2703 That Does NotConflict With Sovereign Rights and The Warrant In This Case As Domestic Would Dramatically Expand TheScope Of Information Held Abroad ThatIs Subject To Domestic Process AndUndermine Internationally Agreed Means 21A.

4 The Government s Interpretation WouldMake The United States The InformationClearinghouse Of The World .. 21B. Characterizing Cross-Border Searchesand Seizures As Domestic WouldDramatically Undermine TheInternational Mutual Legal AssistanceFramework .. Modern Interpretation Of Search andSeizure Law Requires That The Focus Be OnThe Location Of The Electronic RecordsSeized .. 28 CONCLUSION .. 32ivTABLE OF AUTHORITIESCASESIn re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litig., 278 51 ( 2010).

5 24 Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 465 (1921).. 19 Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 443 (1971).. v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 244 (1991).. 6F. Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd. v. Empagran , 542 155 (2004).. 18, 19, 31 Gucci Am., Inc. v. Weixing Li, 768 122 (2d Cir. 2014).. 23 Interamerican Ref. Corp. v. Texaco Maracaibo, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 1291 (D. Del. 1970).. 7 Katz v. United States , 389 347 (1967).. 29, 30 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013).. 18 Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, 731 909 ( Cir.)

6 1984).. 7 Leibovitch v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 852 687 (7th Cir. 2017).. 23 Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Congoleum Corp., 595 1287 (3d Cir. 1979).. 7vMicrosoft Corp. v. United States , 829 197 (2d Cir. 2016).. 5 Morrison v. Nat l Australia Bank Ltd., 561 247 (2010).. 18 Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 (2 Cranch) 64 (1804).. 18 Olmstead v. United States , 277 438 (1928).. 28, 29, 30 Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014).. 25 RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 136 S. Ct. 2090 (2016).. 18 Skinner v.

7 Ry. Labor Executives Ass n, 489 602 (1989).. 19 Soci t Nationale Industrielle A rospatiale Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 482 522 (1987).. 12, 13, 23 Strauss v. Credit Lyonnais, , 249 429 ( 2008).. 23 The Antelope, 23 66 (1825).. 7 The Apollon, 22 (9 Wheat.) 362 (1824).. 6 The Schooner Exch. v. McFaddon, 11 (7 Cranch) 116 (1812).. 6 United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 655 (1992).. 28viUnited States v. Arnold, 533 1003 (9th Cir. 2008).. 25 United States v. Bansal, 663 634 (3d Cir. 2011).

8 24 United States v. Feffer, 831 734 (7th Cir. 1987).. 19 United States v. Galpin, 720 436 (2d Cir. 2013).. 24 United States v. Ickes, 393 501 (4th Cir. 2005).. 25 United States v. Ramsey, 431 606 (1977).. 25 United States v. Rauscher, 119 407 (1886).. 28 United States v. Upham, 168 532 (1st Cir. 1999).. 24 United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 259 (1990).. Kirkpatrick & Co., Inc. v. EnvironmentalTectonics Corp., Intern., 493 400 (1990).. 7 STATUTES AND RULE12 3401 et 818 1801 et 8 Cal.

9 Penal Code 8viiFed. R. Cr. P. 41(d)(1) .. 21 OTHER AUTHORITIESA greement between the United States of Americaand the European Union on the protection ofpersonal information relating to the prevention,investigation, detection, and prosecution ofcriminal offences, 2016 (L 336) 26, 27AM&S europe Ltd. v. Comm n of the EuropeanCommunities, 1982 1577 ( 1982) . 15 Article 29 Working Party s comments on the issueof direct access by third countries lawenforcement to data stored in other jurisdiction,December 5, 2013, 19 Art.

10 66-5 de Loi 71-1130 du 31 d cembre 1971portant r forme de certaines professionsjudiciaires et juridiques [Art. 66-5 of Law 71-1130 of December 31, 1971].. 15 Balabel v Air India [1988] Ch. 317 (EWCA).. 15 Bundesverwaltungsgericht [BVerwG] [FederalConstitutional Court ] Feb. 27, 2008, BverfG(Ger.).. 10viiiSergio Carrera et. al, Centre for European PolicyStudies, Access to Electronic Data by Third-Country Law Enforcement Authorities:Challenges to EU Rule of Law and FundamentalRights 69 (2015).