Connection lost
Server error
United States v. Hambrick Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A user’s subscriber information (name, address, etc.) held by an Internet Service Provider (ISP) is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. The court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from his ISP with an invalid subpoena, applying the third-party doctrine to cyberspace.
Legal Significance: This case established that individuals lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in their ISP subscriber information, extending the third-party doctrine from Smith v. Maryland and United States v. Miller to the internet context and limiting the Fourth Amendment’s reach in online investigations.
United States v. Hambrick Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
A New Hampshire police officer, posing as a minor online, engaged in incriminating conversations with a user named “Blowuinva.” To identify the user, the officer obtained a state subpoena, later conceded to be invalid, and served it on the user’s Internet Service Provider (ISP), MindSpring. The subpoena requested billing and user records associated with a specific IP address at a specific time. In response, MindSpring provided the defendant’s name, address, credit card number, phone numbers, and other account information. This information was subsequently used to obtain a warrant to search the defendant’s home. The defendant, Scott Hambrick, filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained from MindSpring and the subsequent home search, arguing that the government’s acquisition of his ISP records with an invalid subpoena violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The government conceded the subpoena’s invalidity but argued the defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does an individual have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in the subscriber and billing information they voluntarily provide to their Internet Service Provider?
No. The court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress because he did Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commo
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does an individual have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in the subscriber and billing information they voluntarily provide to their Internet Service Provider?
Conclusion
This decision is a key early application of the third-party doctrine to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit
Legal Rule
A person has no legitimate expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sun
Legal Analysis
The court applied the two-part Fourth Amendment test from *Katz v. United Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi u
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A person has no reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth