## Facts

- The United States sought a search warrant under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. § 2703(a), to compel an email service provider to disclose the contents of certain subscribers’ stored emails.
- The government also requested an order directing the provider not to disclose the existence of the warrant to the subscribers.
- A magistrate judge required compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(f)’s notice/receipt obligations and ordered notice to the affected subscribers.
- The government sought district-court review, arguing Rule 41(f) does not apply when a § 2703(a) warrant is executed on a third-party provider rather than directly on the subscriber.

## Issues

1. Whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(f) requires notice to the email subscriber when the government executes a § 2703(a) warrant on an email service provider for stored email contents.
2. If Rule 41(f) notice applies, whether and how notice may be delayed or structured using the SCA’s delayed-notice and non-disclosure provisions (including 18 U.S.C. § 2705).

## Decision

- The district court held that Rule 41(f) applies to § 2703(a) warrants for stored email contents.
- The court concluded the government must provide notice (a copy of the warrant and a receipt) to the subscriber whose email contents were seized, not merely to the provider.
- The court recognized that notice may be delayed or otherwise managed when statutory conditions for secrecy are satisfied, including through SCA mechanisms.
- The court rejected the government’s position that § 2703(a) incorporates only Rule 41’s warrant-issuance procedures and not its execution/notice requirements.

## Legal Principles

- A § 2703(a) warrant must be issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which the court read to include Rule 41’s execution and notice components unless clearly displaced.
- Under Rule 41(f), the person “from whom” property is taken is entitled to the warrant and receipt; for email seized from a provider, the subscriber is treated as that person even though the provider holds the data.
- The SCA’s secrecy and delayed-notice tools (including § 2705) can justify postponing notice, but do not eliminate Rule 41(f)’s baseline notice obligation absent clear statutory language.
- Warrant notice serves accountability functions that continue to apply when the government obtains private communications through third-party storage.

## Conclusion

The court required Rule 41(f) notice to email subscribers when the government seizes stored email contents under § 2703(a) from a service provider, while allowing delayed or structured notice when justified under the SCA’s secrecy provisions.


In re Application of the United States for a Search Warrant for Contents of Elec. Mail & for an Ord. Directing a Provider of Elec. Commc’n Servs. to Not Disclose the Existence of the Search Warrant, 665 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Or. 2009)