Try our Advanced Search for more refined results

Order requiring Apple, Inc. to assist in the execution of a search warrant issued by the court et al

Track this case

Case Number:

1:15-mc-01902

Court:

New York Eastern

Nature of Suit:

Judge:

Margo K. Brodie

Firms

Companies

Sectors & Industries:

  1. April 25, 2016

    Feds Drop Apple IPhone Unlock Fight In New York

    The U.S. government has abandoned its bid in New York federal court to force Apple to help it break into a confessed drug dealer's iPhone, revealing that it no longer needs the tech giant's help because "an individual" has provided investigators with the passcode to unlock the phone.

  2. April 15, 2016

    Apple Calls Feds' NY IPhone Access Demand An Overreach

    Apple Inc. on Friday urged a New York federal judge to throw out the federal government's petition to force the tech giant to access a confessed drug dealer's iPhone data, saying the government hasn't shown that it absolutely needs Apple's help and is pushing a "distortion" of the All Writs Act.

  3. April 08, 2016

    Feds Still Require Apple's Help To Unlock Phone In NY Case

    The federal government on Friday told a New York federal judge that it still wants Apple's help to unlock a confessed drug dealer's iPhone, despite its recent decision to drop a similar fight in California over a locked iPhone used by a suspect in the San Bernardino mass shootings after receiving assistance from an unidentified third party.

  4. March 25, 2016

    Feds Ordered To Answer Apple Stay Request In NY Phone Row

    The New York federal judge overseeing the legal battle between the U.S. Department of Justice and Apple over a drug dealer’s locked iPhone ordered the government Friday to respond to Apple’s bid to stay the case until an update in a related matter involving husband-and-wife terrorists in California.

  5. March 07, 2016

    In NY Appeal, DOJ Says Apple Has Unlocked Phones Before

    Apple has helped the government extract data from passcode-locked iPhones in dozens of criminal cases, so there's no reason it shouldn't be ordered to also pitch in for a drug dealer's case in New York federal court, the U.S. Department of Justice said in its Monday bid to reverse a magistrate's finding Apple wasn't bound to pull the phone's data.

  6. March 01, 2016

    Apple Peels Away At DOJ Bid To Unlock Phones With NY Win

    A New York federal judge on Monday broke ranks with a California counterpart in ruling that Apple doesn't have to help the government unlock a drug dealer's iPhone, a decision that undermines prosecutors' arguments that accessing the suspected San Bernardino shooter's phone is an isolated request that wouldn't harm Apple's future business.

  7. February 29, 2016

    Apple Doesn't Have To Help NY Feds Hack IPhone, Judge Says

    Apple doesn't have to help the government unlock a drug dealer's iPhone, a New York federal judge said Monday in a ruling that may affect a mass shooting case in California, finding that prosecutors' interpretation of a centuries-old law would yield "impermissibly absurd results."

  8. February 23, 2016

    Apple Being 'Misleading' In NY Phone Unlock Fight, Feds Say

    The U.S. government on Monday shot back at Apple's assertion in New York federal court that it has objected to some of the orders it has received since October that require the tech giant to help federal agents around the country unlock Apple devices, calling the statement "misleading."

  9. February 16, 2016

    Apple Must Give More Warrant Request Info, Judge Says

    A New York federal judge on Tuesday told Apple Inc. to provide more information in its recent request for the judge to decide whether prosecutors can use a centuries-old statute to force the company to help them unlock a criminal suspect's iPhone.

  10. February 12, 2016

    Apple Seeks Ruling On DOJ's Bid To Unlock IPhone

    Apple on Friday urged a New York federal judge to decide whether prosecutors can use a centuries-old statute to force the company to help them unlock a criminal suspect's iPhone, arguing that a resolution is vital because the issue is likely to be raised again in future cases.