Microsoft has an email service, also known as Outlook,
which has datacenters located all over the world. In 2013, Microsoft was served
with a search and seizure warrant for the data of a certain user. That user’s
data is stored in a datacenter in Dublin, Ireland. Microsoft gave all of the user’s
information except for the data stored in Dublin.
The magistrate judge denied
Microsoft’s quash because of the Stored Communications Act. The magistrate
judge said that the place where the government would go over the data, not the
place where the data was stored was the relevant place of seizure. Microsoft
appealed the magistrate judge’s decision and the district court held Microsoft
in civil contempt for refusing to give all information requested by the
warrant. The Second Circuit said that the SCA does not allow courts to enforce
against US-based service providers for the search of content that is stored on
foreign datacenters. This reversed the district court’s denial of the motion of
quash, denied the finding of contempt, and returned the case to the district
think that Microsoft should have to give up the user’s information that was
held in Ireland. I understand why they did not have to but if the user did
nothing wrong then what do they have to hide.
v. United States
Erik Hughes admitted to
drug and firearm offenses and entered into a plea agreement with the government.
The district court accepted the agreement and sentenced Hughes. After he was
put in jail there was a sentence reduction. Of course, Hughes wanted this
sentence reduction but they were unsure if he qualified for it because he was
sentenced under a plea agreement. The district court and The Eleventh Circuit
decided that in order to qualify for the sentence reduction he had to of been
sentenced by the sentencing range. Since he was sentenced with a plea agreement
it would not apply to him.
I agree with the court’s
decision not to lower his sentence. I do not think he should get a sentence
reduction because it was lowered after he was already sentenced. In addition,
he was sentenced under a plea agreement, not by the sentencing range as they
said. He is a terrible person and should be locked up for what he did. If he
did not want to do the time, he should not have done the crime. J
Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins went to Masterpiece Cakeshop in
Lakewood, CO, and asked the owner, Jack Phillips, to make a cake for their wedding.
Phillips denied to make them a cake saying that it goes against his religious
views to make a cake for a same sex marriage. Phillips said that decorating
cakes is a form of art through which he can honor God and that it would
displease God to create cakes for same-sex marriages.
and Mullins filed charges of discrimination based on sexual orientation under
the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. They also filed a complaint with the
Office of Administrative Courts saying that Masterpiece discriminated against
them in public, which is a violation of CADA. The Administrative Law Judge
issued a written order in favor of Craig and Mullins, which was confirmed by
the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
think that Jack Phillips should be punished for discriminating against the
couple. I think it went against his personal views and that should not affect
your ability to serve a customer. I think he was just being stuck up and that
is not how you should treat a customer. I hope he gets some kind of punishment
for what he did.