Category Archives: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Government Can Access Individual’s Gmail Account In Money Laundering Probe.

27 Sunday Jul 2014

Posted by in Android Phones, Appellate Law, Apple, Blackberry Phones, Cell Phones, Computer Forensics, Crime Scene Investigation, Criminal Law, Cybersecurity, Discovery, E-Discovery, Emails, Evidence, Experts, Forensic Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Forensic Expert Witness, Fourth Amendment - Search & Seizure, Google, Internet, iPad, iPhones, Legal Technology, Mac, PC Computers, Privacy, Search Warrants, Tablets, Trial Tips and Techniques, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

≈ Comments Off on Government Can Access Individual’s Gmail Account In Money Laundering Probe.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Federal Judge Rules Gmail Account Can Be Accessed For Investigation, by evanino in Evanino Blog

http://www.evanino.com/federal-judge-rules-gmail-account-can-accessed-investigation/

In a landmark ruling that might fuel a nationwide debate, the New York Court issued a warrant against Google, giving access to user emails.

A New York Court issued a warrant against Google Inc ruling that the government can access all mails of a Gmail account of an individual under a money laundering probe. The judge said that courts have long been waiting for law enforcement to take the required documents in the custody if it is within the purview of the warrant.

Contrary to previous rulings

This decision is not in line with the previous court rulings including courts in the Districts of Columbia and Kansas, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York noted on Friday. Also, this latest ruling will spark a debate over the privacy, in the country, according to Computer World.

A District of Columbia judge denied from revealing the entire content of the email as this will seize a large amount of emails for which the authorities have not given any reason.

The Court in Kansas, also, did not rule in favor of a similar warrant, stating that it failed to ‘limit the universe of electronic communications and information to be turned over to the government to the specific crimes being investigated.’

However, the New York Court ruled in favor of such warrant, allowing authorities to take into account the emails and other information from a Google inc’s Gmail account, including the address book and draft mails, and also the authority to search the emails for certain specific categories of evidence.

Experts must scan emails, not Google employee

Judge Gorenstein argued that it is not possible to search the hard-disk drives of computers and other storage devices on the spot due to the complexities of electronic searches. Thus, the authorities can seize such storage.

‘We perceive no constitutionally significant difference between the searches of hard drives just discussed and searches of email accounts,’ the judge wrote. He added that in most of the cases data in an email account will be less ‘expansive’ compared to the information contained in the hard drive.

Judge Gorenstein stated that Google employees are not expert enough to know the importance of particular emails without having been given proper training in the substance of the investigation. Judge said this in response to an opinion by the District of Columbia court that gave the government the option of getting the email scanned by the host itself.

He said that an agent, who is completely absorbed in the investigation, will be able to understand the importance of a particular language in emails contrary to the employee.

Arrogant Legal Writing Gives Texas A Horrible, Terrible Very Bad Day.

26 Saturday Jul 2014

Posted by in Appellate Law, Appellate Writing, Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, U.S. District Courts, Voting Rights Act

≈ Comments Off on Arrogant Legal Writing Gives Texas A Horrible, Terrible Very Bad Day.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Bad Attitude Costs Texas in Fee Dispute, by Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar Blog

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2014/06/bad-attitude-costs-texas.html

 Hey, I get it—sometimes when you win and you think the other side’s position was bogus, it’s hard not to get all smug and self-righteous.

But you really should try.

Not trying very hard—well, not trying at all—cost the State of Texas a lot of money on June 18, when a judge awarded other parties in a voting-rights case $1,096,770 in legal fees and costs, even though Texas had a decent argument that it was the prevailing party and so it should get paid. (McClatchy DC; thanks, Mark.)

In the U.S., normally each side has to pay its own fees, but some statutes say the ‘prevailing party’ is entitled to recover fees from the loser. But exactly who ‘prevails’ in a lawsuit is not always clear, and that was the case in this lawsuit, which involved Texas’s plans to redraw its voting districts. (Skip down three paragraphs or so if that could not sound more boring.)

Under the Voting Rights Act—Still here? Nerd. Under the Voting Rights Act, Texas was one of the states that had to get federal ‘preclearance’ for redistricting because of the history of discrimination there. Texas decided to sue for a declaration that its plans were okay, and the feds opposed. Other parties (Democrats, basically) intervened because they also wanted to oppose. Texas mostly lost in the district court, and it appealed. In the meantime, though, it came up with new plans that were more likely to comply with the court’s order.

One day before the new plans became law, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Shelby County that all this VRA preclearance stuff was unconstitutional—or had become unconstitutional at some point over the last 50 years, anyway, discrimination now being a thing of the past, you see. Told you so, said Texas, and moved to dismiss the still-pending case involving its first set of plans.

Okay, so who ‘prevailed’ in that mess? The Democratic groups said they did, because Texas lost the first ruling and changed its plans, just like they wanted it to, and they filed motions seeking over $1 million in fees. Texas did not agree.

It did not agree so much, in fact, that it didn’t even bother to file responses. Or, rather, it did file something but it couldn’t bring itself to call the document a ‘response.’ It filed this three-page thing it called an ‘Advisory,’ saying that not only did Shelby County mean Texas won, it meant Texas had essentially always been right because the law was unconstitutional all along (an ‘affront’ and a ‘nullity’), and the case never should have been brought. That’s wrong for a couple of reasons, I think, but Texas was so sure of itself that it didn’t bother to say much of anything else.

As the judge’s decision made clear, this was a Bad Idea. . . .