More handpicked essays just for you.
Principles of criminal investigation
Government surveillance and the right to privacy essay
Government surveillance and the right to privacy essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Principles of criminal investigation
We are writing to highlight an issue of concern in regards to protected and privileged attorney-client communications that may be in your custody. This issue is being raised, first, because of concerns that state actors may have spoken with or obtained, indirectly from third parties, information that would be considered privileged from Stanford A. Graham. Because Mr. Graham acted as counsel for individuals and entities that are targeted by state action, all communication, indeed all information he possesses would be considered to be protected and inaccessible by the state. In addition, the execution of the warrants likely has resulted in the state obtaining possession of information and documents that are protected by the attorney-client
Joseph P. Reilly filed a complaint against Gwynne G. Zisko, Esq., on or about April 8, 2016. Reilly asserts that Zisko violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by serving a subpoena on his employer, the Plymouth County Sheriff’s Department. The details of the case relating to the subpoena will be discussed further on in this report. Within the complaint, Reilly alleges that Zisko has violated Mass.R.Prof.C. 3.4, as well as 4.4.
Procunier case is whether the California Department of Corrections’ restriction on media-inmate interviews is constitutional or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the California Department of Corrections ban was constitutional and did not violate the inmates’ rights of free speech. Furthermore, the regulation did not violate the media’s right to access information within a correctional
On the evening of January 5, 1993, Tracie Reeves and Molly Coffman, both twelve years of age and students at West Carroll Middle School, spoke on the telephone and decided to kill their homeroom teacher, Janice Geiger. They agreed that Coffman would bring rat poison to school the following days so that it could be placed in Geiger's drink. After that , they would steal Geiger's car and drive to the Smoky Mountains. On the morning of January 6, Coffman placed a packet of rat poison in her purse and board the school bus. Coffman told another student, Christy Hernandez, of the plan and show her the poison. Hernandez went and informed her homeroom teacher, Sherry Cockrill. Cockrill then informed the school principal, Claudia Argo. When Geiger entered her classroom that morning, she observed Reeves and Coffman leaning over her deck; and when the girls noticed her, they giggled and ran back to their seats. Geiger saw a purse lying next to her coffee cup on the top of the desk. Shortly after Argo called Coffman to the principal's office, rat poison was found in Coffman's purse. Both Reeves and Coffman gave written statement to the Sheriff investigator concerning their plan to poison Geiger and steal her car.
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
When working with a court appointed lawyer you need to research and follow up on guidelines that carry with your charge. You have to learn how the court system works. Lawyers that are hired by the court to represent the low and middle-income people are lazy in doing their job. There are many reasons why court appointed lawyers don't do their best for their clients involving the court cases.
3. The court stated: "We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during police questioning, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the state. These words have preceded every arrest since Miranda v. Arizona 1966, informing every detained person of his rights before any type of formal police questioning begins. This issue has been a hot topic for decades causing arguments over whether or not the Miranda Warnings should or should not continue to be part of police practices, and judicial procedures. In this paper, the author intends to explore many aspects of the Miranda Warnings including; definition, history, importance to society, constitutional issues, and pro’s and con’s of having the Miranda Warnings incorporated into standard police procedures.
Holloway, Carson. "Profiling and the Constitution." Public Discourse. N.p., n. d. Web. 4 Mar. 2014. .
The case of Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 [1966]) is one of the most important cases in history. It brought about prominent rights that are still existent today in 2015 regarding interrogations and custody. The results of this case are still seen in the current criminal justice system. However, even though the rights that were given to the system by the court, there are still instances today in which these Miranda rights are violated. The concept of Miranda has evolved a lot from a court case to a code used by law enforcement during custodies and investigations.
In short, argues Cooley, what is the difference between papers stored in the home and correspondence held at a telegraph office? This idea is not dissimilar to the majority opinion in Katz that the “Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.” In Cooley’s words, if a person’s correspondence is open to seizure in a telegraph office, then why should it be more protected in his home?
The power of executive privilege has been extremely controversial since basically the beginning of the United States as a democratic government. Many saw this power come into a greater public focus particularly during the Nixon presidency and the infamous Watergate Scandal, but the theory and use of executive privilege existed long before Nixon. As in true American fashion, some argue in favor of executive privilege, while others view it in a more negative light. The intense controversy is what makes executive privilege so intriguing to review in a deeper and more in depth analysis. The theory of executive privilege has derived its power throughout evolution of time, a series of presidencies, and quite a few pinpointed circumstances resulting in some very notorious court cases.
Smith, C. E. (2004). Public defenders. In T. Hall, U.S. Legal System (pp. 567-572-). [Ebscohost]. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook
Arrests are often the first step in the criminal justice processes. The law requires that a “court-issued warrant precedes and an arrest” (Hess 89) this is not always a luxury that is afforded to law enforcement. Sometimes “there is often
To that point, an article written by Yale Law School, details the impact of chilling effects regarding Executive Order (E.O.) 12.333, which serves as the general charter for mass intelligence surveillance. Most recently, the MFIA Clinic helped the ACLU launch a litigation to learn more about the intricate details of Executive Order 12.333 (Perlin, 2017). According to the literature, increased disclosures regarding the workings of this Executive Order 12.333
Freeman advocates for anonymity as a right and a part of the freedom speech and is concerned with the legal implications of the case. Alongside his analysis, Freeman recommends statures to follow when using the internet when doing private browsing sections and further relates anonymity as an important right to American citizens. This analysis of ACLU of Georgia v. Miller allows for a legal example to be used as a primary focal point of legality and anonymity. Overall, it also provides a paradigm shift of anonymity before September 11 and the NSA