STATE v. MCDONNELL

No. 36, Sept. Term, 2022.

297 A.3d 1114 (2023)

484 Md. 56

STATE of Maryland v. Daniel Ashley MCDONNELL.

Supreme Court of Maryland.

July 7, 2023.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Argued by Andrew H. Costinett, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Anthony G. Brown, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.

Argued by Joshua M. Wesneski (Zachary D. Tripp, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Washington, DC; J. Dennis Murphy, Jr., Murphy & Price LLP, Ocean City, MD; and Daniel M. Lifton, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY), on brief, for Respondent.

Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Maryland: David R. Rocah, Esquire, ACLU of Maryland Foundation, 3600 Clipper Mill Road, Suite 350, Baltimore, MD 21211, Jennifer Stisa Granick, Esquire, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, 39 Drumm Street, San Francisco, CA 94111, Brett Max Kaufman, Esquire, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004.

Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Electronic Frontier Foundation: Terri S. Reiskin, Esquire, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, 101 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20001, Brandon L. Boxier, Esquire, Klein Thomas Lee & Fresard, 919 E. Main St., Suite 1000, Richmond, VA 23219, Ian K. Edwards, Esquire, Klein Thomas Lee & Fresard, 101 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 1400, Troy, MI 48084, Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, Esquire, Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C., 3710 Landmark Drive, Suite 113, Columbia, SC 29204, David B. Smith, Esquire, David B. Smith, PLLC, 108 North Alfred Street, 1st Floor, Alexandria, VA 22314, Jennifer Lynch, Esquire, Andrew Crocker, Esquire, Electronic Frontier Foundation, 815 Eddy Street, San Francisco, CA 94109.

Amicus Curiae Restore the Fourth, Inc.: Charles W. Michaels, Esquire, C. William Michaels Law Offices, 5625 Vantage Point Road, Columbia, MD 21044, Mahesha P. Subbaraman, Esquire, Subbaraman PLLC, 222 S. 9th Street, Suite 1600, Minneapolis, MN 55402.

Argued before: Fader, C.J., Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Gould, Eaves, JJ.


In this case, we must determine what protection, if any, the Fourth Amendment provides to a person who voluntarily consents to the government seizing his laptop computer, creating an exact copy of its hard drive, and searching the data on it, but who, after the copy is made but before the government has examined the data, withdraws the...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases