evidence: For over a decade, federal and state courts across the country have construed the SCA to bar criminal defendants from subpoenaing technology companies for the contents of another’s electronic communications.10 Section 2702(a) of the SCA mandates that electronic communication service providers "shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication."11 Section 2702(b) then lists nine express exceptions for permissible disclosures of communications contents, including disclosures to an intended recipient of the communication, disclosures necessary to the rendition of the service, and disclosures to governmental entities pursuant to certain forms of legal process.12 The text is silent on criminal defense subpoenas,13 as is the legislative record.14 Nonetheless, courts and commentators alike have concluded that the SCA bars disclosures pursuant to such subpoenas without qualification. When communications are unavailable from other sources, such as when subpoenaing an account holder directly would be dangerous or impossible or would risk destruction of evidence, the current SCA case law can completely suppress relevant, exculpatory evidence.