Here is an example to ponder from a hypothetical case.
LE asked a university to preserve evidence relating to emails on their server and verbally asked them to preserve backup files of a personal directory once notified by the university that they contained contraband material. The university's IT people went outside the scope of the search on their own when backing up the drive and discovering the contraband.
However, the actual supoena, issued after verbal contact by LE with the univeristy, never requested data from the drives, only email.
It looks like the university became an agent of the government once they acted on the verbal request of LE without a supoena, requiring them to meet 4th amendent search guidelines.
What do you think?
LD–
I am not an attorney, do not even play one on TV, but my unsworn thoughts
(1) Absolutely nothing in my dealings with LE is verbal. Put it in writing, on a letterhead, preferably over a judge's signature.
(2) Run this document through Legal. No legal department? For shame.
(3) Decide how to bill this effort. All time must be billed in a university, no? Same for a public company.
(4) Are not backups made routinely? Of course they are. Would these standard backups meet the needs of LE? Minutes of the relevant meetings between LE, IT and Legal should address this issue specifically.
So I cannot see myself in this situation sans a serious paperwork (and legal) trail to CMA. Once LE enters the scene one is well-advised to at least consider the possibility that their real target is you.
Ok, I confess it is a real case I worked on and I already know the answers. Stuff like this really happens folks.