Not really relevant. Microsoft has control over the data and can produce it if it wishes. It can't hide behind corporate forms.

Then Microsoft is screwed. In the meantime, Microsoft has access to the data and must provide it. They don't get get to pretend their subsidiary is not under their control.

As a lawyer, let me assure you that plenty of countries have laws/ruling that let them compel persons under their jurisdiction, including specifically companies incorporated under their laws, to take specified actions in other countries.

And the government's answer is "no, bring us your data or we freeze your assets and hold your US-based management in jail until you produce it."

No, it's not as simple as that. Servers and data fundamentally obey those rules more easily than ANY OTHER THING ON EARTH.

Well unlawful searches would be a violation to due process, the question then becomes what's the remedy for that? I think we're so used to the evidence exclusion rule that we tend not to realize that's just one way to "fix" the problem. You can do criminal charges against the police, or you can do civil damages.

The counterargument against excluding evidence is: you committed a crime; this evidence shows it. Why should you get off just because the police did something wrong? That didn't magically make it so you didn't commit the crime, it just turns the whole process into a game with arbitrary rules.

Uh....Fernandez v. California says the opposite of what you're saying. In it the Supreme Court held that even though one occupant had denied police entry, that after he had been arrested and moved away from the premises the other occupant could consent to a search. Only where one occupant is physically present and denying access are the police prevented from searching.

In any event, my hypothetical was more akin to Illinois v. Rodriguez, where the Court held that as long as the police had a reasonable belief that the person giving consent to search was in fact authorized to do so, evidence won't be excluded, even if that person did not have actual authority.

That being said, I will qualify that I believe in some states actual authority is required, but at the Supreme Court/Federal level only apparent authority is needed.

I don't think there's much that can be done as a preventive measure, though I guess since a lot of these cases hinge on really close questions about whether a search was reasonable it's possible. You'd have to make it super specific I'd think, maybe something like: "No trespassing. This specifically includes law enforcement; the owner does not and never will give consent for law enforcement to search or enter these premises for any reason whatsoever. Anyone giving such consent is not the owner and is not authorized to grant any such permission. The owner reserves all rights under the law and will pursue a civil action and/or file criminal charges against anyone, including law enforcement, who unlawfully enters these premises."

Kind of over the top but in a close case it might convince a judge that whatever pretext the police came up with to enter was unreasonable. Also might be a good idea to have a motion-activated camera with sound to capture anyone who would be in a position to read it so you could capture whoever enters, if you really want to be careful.

Well the exclusionary principle isn't enshrined in law, or even considered a Constitutional requirement, it's just a policy decision the Courts have made to keep the police in line. Theoretically they could get rid of it tomorrow and offer a different remedy for an unlawful search (like lawsuits for damages). Once there's no deterrent effect (like where the cops don't know it's illegal, or at least can show that) the Court discards it as essentially useless.

Well IAAL (in the 11th circuit even) so I tend to get a little OCD about legal terms. You're right it has precedential value in other circuits and any court addressing the issue will take this case seriously, though circuits frequently do just explicitly disagree with other circuits so I'd be more comfortable once this gets to the Supreme Court.

By the way, I just glanced at the opinion and the stuff I say above applies to THIS case. Despite ruling it a fourth amendment violation the court let the conviction stand precisely because the police had a good faith belief they were not violating the fourth amendment.

Not really; the exclusionary principle is based on the premise that the courts will punish law enforcement for knowingly evading their constitutional responsiblities by not letting them use whatever evidence they wrongfully obtained. Until binding precedential caselaw is established, law enforcement can be considered to not have known they were required to get a warrant before, so any evidence before that point would not be excluded.

For example, the cops generally need a warrant to enter your house to search for drugs unless an owner grants permission to the search. If you're staying over at my house while I'm away, the cops ask you for permission to search the place thinking it is your house, and you say yes, anything they find is admissible because they had a good faith belief they were conducting a legal search.

Nope, it IS only binding in the Eleventh Circuit. One of the reasons cases get to the Supreme Court is because there's a circuit split; some circuits go one way, some go the other, and the SC decides which should apply to the whole country.

Are you sure he's a recluse? You can be out of the public eye and not be a recluse.

Eh, I've been both an IT guy and a lawyer, and honestly the bar exam isn't particularly hard or connected to what lawyers actually do. From what I've heard the higher-end certifications in IT do a decent job.