The following excerpt is from United States v. Rubel, No. 18-2725 (2nd Cir. 2020):
With respect to the question of tailoring the condition to suit the offender, although we expect monitoring to "be precisely targeted to" and to "bear a close and substantial relation to the government's interest in pursuing the search" of information on the offender's electronic devices, we do not require employment of "the least intrusive means." United States v. Lifshitz, 369 F.3d 173, 190-92 (2d Cir. 2004). Instead, we require that, "if other information is inadvertently gathered . . . , those monitoring compliance should remain conscientiously unaware of that data." Id. at 190.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.