most of the points at any rate were on the 4th Amendment. I discussed the applicability of the order to consumers (no expectation of privacy in business’ data) and to businesses (reasonable expectation of privacy). then applied facts (warrant requirement, probable cause showing, no applicable 4A exceptions).

I don’t really consider this a crim pro question just because its 4th amendement, since no crimes were involved. it was mostly a standing question (who has standing to object)

richard

And after reading the post you linked, I have to agree with Harper, too. I remember when the Fourth Amendment only appeared in my criminal procedure class and I thought, “Hm. That’s odd. The ‘plain meaning’ of the text, or what it appears to say on its face, does not say anything about criminal procedure.” I do remember my criminal procedure professor pointing out that the warrant requirement does not necessarily go part and parcel with the first clause about security: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated[.]” Sure seems to stand alone. That’s exactly where I started my analysis on the bar exam, too. Then, once I realized that everybody was drawing a blank, I had fun with it—a lot more fun than I had with the subsequent (and painfully run-of-the-mill) contracts question.

I’m warming to the belief that this will at least be considered a Con Law/Crim Pro crossover, because the overwhelming opinion seems to be that the Fourth Amendment is a Criminal Procedure area. However, I tended to fall into the Jim Harper camp over the Orin Kerr camp in the following:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_06_01-2008_06_07.shtml#1212693646