Obviously it goes through the process, but I think the feds will push to keep CFAA as well, so it's going to go all the way. 41 months is long enough for that; if he'd gotten a 3-6 month sentence the process wouldn't have had time, so maybe weev's "troll the courts" strategy had some merit.

While weev himself is highly unsympathetic, his actual "crime" in this case is quite sympathetic -- it was technically trivial and the results were given to the press, vs. used for financial gain (even though they talked about it). So maybe it's not the worst possible test case.

His biggest mistake was not being in the 9th circuit, though.

(IANAL though, of course)

FWIW: I don't think SCOTUS will bother taking the case if he loses his first appeal.

IAAL :)

So the most likely route for a case like this to SCOTUS would be split circuit? I doubt this is the last CFAA case.

Assuming he loses, yes, losing elsewhere and having a circuit split is probably the most likely route.

But who knows, maybe scotus would get bored enough to find it interesting.

I'm betting "no" in part because legislative fixes are being considered right now. If one passes, it would reduce the odds SCOTUS would ever take the case.

He needs to win on appeal for this to go to SCOTUS.

That's part of it, but it was a natural reaction to the total collapse of order and the explosion in crime in U.S. cities in the 1970's and 1980's. The fact is that most of the people invoking the 4th amendment were really unsympathetic. They still are.

Of course they're unsympathetic -- if they were merely good citizens who were hassled for no good reason, there wouldn't have been a charge.

Improper search and seizure leading to a trial is going to have found drugs/guns/whatever, by definition. That doesn't mean the rest of us should have our 4th amendment rights weakened.

I don't disagree with you. My point is that it's important to understand the context. The federal courts are absolutely clogged with appeals and habeas petitions from "bad people" who clearly did whatever they were charged with. People who are just trying to get off for serious crimes by grasping at technicalities (because they're in prison and have nothing better to do anyway). For all the skepticism about the police, they don't like losing prosecutions and as a result tend to go after slam-dunk cases.

For the courts charged with maintaining these protections, it can be hard to keep a hard-line stance in favor of 4th/5th amendment protections in face of a docket that is chock full of actual criminals who actually deserve their sentences.

It's an explanation, not a justification.