Statement of FactThe government alleges that the defendant, Austin Heim, committed federal drug crimes. The Government believed that Defendant used email in support of these activities. He obtained a court order requiring Cornell University, the provider of the defendant's email account, to provide them with the contents of the account. The defendant filed a motion to suppress these emails at trial. The defendant claims he has a right to privacy in his emails. He claims that the Government's 'warrantless search' violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Questions1. Under the Fourth Amendment, did Mr. Heim have a right to privacy in his emails?2. Should the court grant Mr. Heim's motion to suppress his emails? Introduction Applying the standard proposed in Katz v. United States,1 the court must grant the defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his emails. By not publicly disclosing his emails or the password used to limit access to them, defendant demonstrated a reasonable expectation of privacy. Society supports this expectation, using email extensively for private purposes and expecting them to remain private. Therefore, according to Katz2, the Fourth Amendment protected the defendant's emails.3 Because the government search lacked the judicial oversight necessary to legally violate the Fourth Amendment,4 it violated the defendant's rights.5 Therefore, the court must accept his motion. Discussion and analysis of legal norms To understand why the norm applied in the Katz6 case is the most suitable to answer the questions of this motion, it is necessary to consider its alternatives. In addition to Katz, Olmstead v. United States7 and Kyllo v. United States8 represent crucial cases that have addressed the... middle of paper... incomparable means. As with the postal system, the user entrusts their message to a third party, expecting that the privacy of their message will not be violated. Additionally, while email is not stored in a person's mailbox on their property, storing it on a third-party server is no different than using a mailbox to receive mail. The company expects emails to remain private unless deliberately disclosed. For these reasons, Mr. Heim satisfies the second condition of the rule. Therefore, Mr. Heim was entitled to privacy in his emails under the Fourth Amendment. Because the government obtained Mr. Heim's emails with a court order and not a warrant based on a showing of probable cause as required,22 the government violated Mr. Heim's privacy rights with their search. Therefore, your motion must be granted and the emails obtained in this manner must be suppressed as evidence at trial.