U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 21A— PRIVACY PROTECTION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— FIRST AMENDMENT PRIVACY PROTECTION › Part Part A— Unlawful Acts

42 U.S.C. § 2000aa

Searches and seizures by government officers and employees in connection with investigation or prosecution of criminal offenses

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Work product materialsNotwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce; but this provision shall not impair or affect the ability of any government officer or employee, pursuant to otherwise applicable law, to search for or seize such materials, if—(1) there is probable cause to believe that the person possessing such materials has committed or is committing the criminal offense to which the materials relate: Provided, however, That a government officer or employee may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials or the information contained therein (but such a search or seizure may be conducted under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense consists of the receipt, possession, or communication of information relating to the national defense, classified information, or restricted data under the provisions of section 793, 794, 797, or 798 of title 18, or section 2274, 2275, or 2277 of this title, or section 783 of title 50, or if the offense involves the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, the sexual exploitation of children, or the sale or purchase of children under section 2251, 2251A, 2252, or 2252A of title 18); or(2) there is reason to believe that the immediate seizure of such materials is necessary to prevent the death of, or serious bodily injury to, a human being.(b) Other documentsNotwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize documentary materials, other than work product materials, possessed by a person in connection with a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce; but this provision shall not impair or affect the ability of any government officer or employee, pursuant to otherwise applicable law, to search for or seize such materials, if—(1) there is probable cause to believe that the person possessing such materials has committed or is committing the criminal offense to which the materials relate: Provided, however, That a government officer or employee may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials or the information contained therein (but such a search or seizure may be conducted under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense consists of the receipt, possession, or communication of information relating to the national defense, classified information, or restricted data under the provisions of section 793, 794, 797, or 798 of title 18, or section 2274, 2275, or 2277 of this title, or section 783 of title 50, or if the offense involves the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, the sexual exploitation of children, or the sale or purchase of children under section 2251, 2251A, 2252, or 2252A of title 18);(2) there is reason to believe that the immediate seizure of such materials is necessary to prevent the death of, or serious bodily injury to, a human being;(3) there is reason to believe that the giving of notice pursuant to a subpena duces tecum would result in the destruction, alteration, or concealment of such materials; or(4) such materials have not been produced in response to a court order directing compliance with a subpena duces tecum, and—(A) all appellate remedies have been exhausted; or(B) there is reason to believe that the delay in an investigation or trial occasioned by further proceedings relating to the subpena would threaten the interests of justice.(c) Objections to court ordered subpoenas; affidavits

In the event a search warrant is sought pursuant to paragraph (4)(B) of subsection (b), the person possessing the materials shall be afforded adequate opportunity to submit an affidavit setting forth the basis for any contention that the materials sought are not subject to seizure.

(Pub. L. 96–440, title I, § 101, Oct. 13, 1980, 94 Stat. 1879; Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title I, § 101(a) [title I, § 121[6]], Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009–26, 3009–30.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1996—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 104–208, § 101(a) [title I, § 121[6(1)]], inserted “, or if the offense involves the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, the sexual exploitation of children, or the sale or purchase of children under section 2251, 2251A, 2252, or 2252A of title 18” before parenthesis at end.

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 104–208, § 101(a) [title I, § 121[6(2)]], inserted “, or if the offense involves the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, the sexual exploitation of children, or the sale or purchase of children under section 2251, 2251A, 2252, or 2252A of title 18” before parenthesis at end.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 96–440, title I, § 108, Oct. 13, 1980, 94 Stat. 1882, provided that: “The provisions of this title [enacting this subchapter] shall become effective on January 1, 1981, except that insofar as such provisions are applicable to a State or any governmental unit other than the United States, the provisions of this title shall become effective one year from the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 13, 1980].”

Short Title

Pub. L. 96–440, § 1, Oct. 13, 1980, 94 Stat. 1879, provided: “That this Act [enacting this chapter and provisions set out as notes under this section] may be cited as the ‘Privacy Protection Act of 1980’.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 63 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: S.H.A.R.K. v. Metro Parks Serving Summit County
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
S.H.A.R.K. v. Metro Parks Serving Summit County (2007) ca6 · cites it 6× “§ 1983 , the Privacy Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa et seq., and state-law tort, alleging that the defendants violated their First Amendment rights.”
Anthony Novak v. City of Parma (2019) ca6 · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(a). But the statute has a "suspect exception.”
Sennett v. United States (2012) ca4 · cites it 6× “See 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.”
Guest v. Leis (2001) ca6 · cites it 4× “” 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa 6(a); cf. 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (11) (defining “aggrieved person” under ECPA Title I as “a person who was a party to any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or a person against whom the interception was directed”).”
Davis v. Gracey (1997) ca10 · cites it 3× “§ 1983 for violation of First and Fourth Amendment rights, and under the Privacy Protection Act (PPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000aa — 2000aa-12, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 18 U.”
In re Leopold (2018) cadc · cites it 4× “42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(a) - (b). One such excepted circumstance is that the government may search for and seize "documentary materials, other than work product materials," otherwise subject to the PPA's protections, where "such materials have not been produced in response to a court…”
Anthony Novak v. City of Parma, Ohio (2022) ca6 “See 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(a). But on this appeal, Novak fails to develop any argument suggesting we should reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants.”
Garcia v. Montgomery County (2015) mdd · cites it 3× “All individual defendants were sued in both their individual and official capacities, with the exception of Chief Manager and Officer *504 Graves, who were sued in their official capacities only.”
United States v. Ali (2012) dcd · cites it 2× “26 The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government. Id. at 534-35. On appeal, Sennett argued that there was no probable cause because there were “innocent explanation^] for her actions”: For instance, Sennett argue[d] that she believed there was a…”
John Doe v. Jay B. Stephens (1988) cadc · cites it 2× “See District Court Opinion at 630-631. Doe forswears reliance on the common law tort of abuse of process, see Brief for Appellant at 22, arguing instead that in light of the protections encoded within the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, 42 U.”
United States v. Hunter (1998) vtd · cites it 2× “Privacy Protection Act Hunter invokes the Privacy Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa, and argues that it applies to the search here because Hunter published Vermont Law Week out of his law office.”
Citicasters, Inc. v. McCaskill (1995) mowd · cites it 6× “” 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa (emphasis added). Thus, the statute requires only that the materials be connected with a public communication.”
Show all 63 citing cases →
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(a) — 26 cases
Anthony Novak v. City of Parma (2019) ca6 “42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(a). But the statute has a "suspect exception.”
Anthony Novak v. City of Parma, Ohio (2022) ca6 “See 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(a). But on this appeal, Novak fails to develop any argument suggesting we should reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants.”
Guest v. Leis (2001) ca6 “” 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa 6(a); cf. 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (11) (defining “aggrieved person” under ECPA Title I as “a person who was a party to any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or a person against whom the interception was directed”).”
Sennett v. United States (2012) ca4 “See 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.”
John Doe v. Jay B. Stephens (1988) cadc “See District Court Opinion at 630-631. Doe forswears reliance on the common law tort of abuse of process, see Brief for Appellant at 22, arguing instead that in light of the protections encoded within the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, 42 U.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(a)(1) — 6 cases
Anthony Novak v. City of Parma (2019) ca6 “42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(a). But the statute has a "suspect exception.”
In re Leopold (2018) cadc “42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(a) - (b). One such excepted circumstance is that the government may search for and seize "documentary materials, other than work product materials," otherwise subject to the PPA's protections, where "such materials have not been produced in response to a court…”
Sennett v. United States (2011) vaed
Novak v. City of Parma (2021) ohnd
Christopher J. Madaio v. United States of America (2026) flsd
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(a)(l) — 3 cases
Sennett v. United States (2012) ca4 “See 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.”
United States v. Ali (2012) dcd “26 The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government. Id. at 534-35. On appeal, Sennett argued that there was no probable cause because there were “innocent explanation^] for her actions”: For instance, Sennett argue[d] that she believed there was a…”
Morse v. Regents of University of California (2011) cand
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(b) — 10 cases
S.H.A.R.K. v. Metro Parks Serving Summit County (2007) ca6 “§ 1983 , the Privacy Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa et seq., and state-law tort, alleging that the defendants violated their First Amendment rights.”
Davis v. Gracey (1997) ca10 “§ 1983 for violation of First and Fourth Amendment rights, and under the Privacy Protection Act (PPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000aa — 2000aa-12, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 18 U.”
Citicasters, Inc. v. McCaskill (1995) mowd “” 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa (emphasis added). Thus, the statute requires only that the materials be connected with a public communication.”
Citicasters, Inc. v. Claire C. McCaskill (1996) ca8
TEICHBERG v. Smith (2010) mnd
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(b)(1) — 1 case
S.H.A.R.K. v. Metro Parks Serving (2007) ca6
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(b)(2) — 2 cases
Citicasters, Inc. v. McCaskill (1995) mowd “” 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa (emphasis added). Thus, the statute requires only that the materials be connected with a public communication.”
Citicasters, Inc. v. Claire C. McCaskill (1996) ca8
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(b)(3) — 4 cases
Guest v. Leis (2001) ca6 “” 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa 6(a); cf. 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (11) (defining “aggrieved person” under ECPA Title I as “a person who was a party to any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or a person against whom the interception was directed”).”
Sennett v. United States (2011) vaed
Berglund v. City of Maplewood, MN (2001) mnd
Madaio, Christopher v. United States (2025) flsd
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(b)(4) — 2 cases
Citicasters, Inc. v. Claire C. McCaskill (1996) ca8
The State of Texas v. Robert Chody (2025) texapp
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(b)(4)(13) — 1 case
Citicasters, Inc. v. Claire C. McCaskill (1996) ca8
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(b)(4)(B) — 3 cases
In re Leopold (2018) cadc “42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(a) - (b). One such excepted circumstance is that the government may search for and seize "documentary materials, other than work product materials," otherwise subject to the PPA's protections, where "such materials have not been produced in response to a court…”
Citicasters, Inc. v. Claire C. McCaskill (1996) ca8
In Re in the Matter of the Application of Jason Leopold to Unseal Certain Electronic Surveillance Applications and Order (2018) dcd
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(b)(l) — 1 case
S.H.A.R.K. v. Metro Parks Serving Summit County (2007) ca6 “§ 1983 , the Privacy Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa et seq., and state-law tort, alleging that the defendants violated their First Amendment rights.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(c) — 4 cases
In re Leopold (2018) cadc “42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(a) - (b). One such excepted circumstance is that the government may search for and seize "documentary materials, other than work product materials," otherwise subject to the PPA's protections, where "such materials have not been produced in response to a court…”
Citicasters, Inc. v. McCaskill (1995) mowd “” 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa (emphasis added). Thus, the statute requires only that the materials be connected with a public communication.”
Citicasters, Inc. v. Claire C. McCaskill (1996) ca8
In Re in the Matter of the Application of Jason Leopold to Unseal Certain Electronic Surveillance Applications and Order (2018) dcd
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.