As anticipated, the ACLU and several civil liberties organizations have filed an amicus (friend of court) brief in the review court considering the FISA Court's order in May, 2002 that rejected the Justice Department's May, 2002 guidelines allowing FISA warrants to be sought for physical and electronic searches and seizures when law enforcement as opposed to intelligence gathering was the primary purpose for the intrusion.

"Both the lower court and Congress have now said that Attorney General Ashcroft has gone too far in his interpretation of what the law allows," said Ann Beeson, Litigation Director of the Technology and Liberty Program of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the brief together with the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Center for National Security Studies, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Open Society Institute."

"No one is questioning the government's authority to prosecute spies and terrorists," Beeson added, "but we do not need to waive the Constitution to do so."

"Under the proposed guidelines, "the Attorney General could suspend the ordinary requirements of the Fourth Amendment in order to listen in on phone calls, read e-mails, and conduct secret searches of Americans' homes and offices," said James X. Dempsey, Deputy Director of the Center for Democracy and Technology."

"As the Supreme Court said when it last considered wiretap limits, the brief noted, "The price of lawful public dissent must not be a read of subjection to an unchecked surveillance power."

"The groups urged the FISC Review Court to uphold the seven- judge panel of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which in May unanimously rejected the government's bid for expanded powers."

More details on the controversy can be found on several of our earlier posts, including this one.

A few months ago we wrote about an Ohio judge who held a public defender in contempt for refusing to disclose what a deceased client may have told her in confidence about the disappearance of a missing 9-year-old girl named Erica Baker.

Today, the Ohio Appeals Court ruled that the public defender must give up the information.

From the AP article:

"The 2nd Ohio District Court of Appeals sided Thursday with a judge who held public defender Beth Lewis in contempt for refusing to tell a grand jury whether her client talked about Erica Baker's disappearance. Lewis contends such testimony would violate attorney-client privilege."

"Lewis represented Jan Franks, who died of a drug overdose last year. Investigators think Franks may have known something about the girl's disappearance based on information from a jail informant. Prosecutors were never able to establish a connection, but they want to know if Franks told anything to her attorney."

"Under Ohio law, a surviving spouse or a trustee of a client's estate can give permission for a lawyer to reveal the client's conversations. Franks' husband agreed to waive the attorney-client privilege."

"Lewis' attorney argued that the exception is intended only for probate matters, such as questions involving a will, and doesn't apply to the current case."

"In its unanimous ruling, the three-judge appeals court interpreted the law to mean that the attorney may be compelled to testify when surviving spouses give consent."

The order is stayed so that Lewis can appeal to a higher Ohio Court.

Howard Bashman says the opinion isn't up yet, but he'll post a link on How Appealing when it is.

[comments now closed]

Jim Capozzola over at Rittenhouse is in top form today.

It's Slacker Friday on Altercation, Eric posts his top mail of the week, and check out some of his new links. We're proud to have had a hand in their selection.

Skippy has a bunch of opposing comments going on to one of his posts about the "Buffalo Six" and a very funny piece on a recent Ashleigh Banfield MSNBC interview.

Lisa English of Ruminate This has been writing great stuff all week about Bush and the probable war with Iraq.

Newsday is reporting that at least seven of the New York Mets have used marijuana this season.

"None of the Mets contacted made any connection between the team's miserable 2002 season and drug use. However, medical experts say marijuana use can impair coordination."

Reading this article was like taking a step back to the movie "Reefer Madness." Ok, maybe that's an exaggeration. Still, it was hard to believe they were talking about marijuana and not heroin.

But sports is not something we know anything about, so we will wait to see how those who do weigh in. Daily Kos , Cooped Up , and Smythes World, are you out there?

Abd Samad, the brother of terror trial defendant Zacharias Moussoui, has written a book. In it, he says Moussoui grew up without religion and could not speak Arabic. Up until eight years ago, Moussoui would not enter a Mosque.

A teacher, Abd Samad said he wrote his book "to denounce religious extremism and discourage deprived youngsters from following in his brother's footsteps."

``I don't see in what way I could be of any usefulness to my brother,'' he said, adding that his family was ``saddened to see how stubbornly Zacarias persists in declarations of hate.''

Moussaoui has denied taking part in the September 11 attacks but has admitted to being a member of Al Qaeda.

The LA Police Commission has named the three finalists for the position of Top Cop in LA.

We are very pleased that our choice, William Bratton, former Police Commissioner of New York and Boston, is one of the finalists.

"The Police Commission on Thursday named former New York police commissioner William Bratton, Oxnard Police Chief Art Lopez and former Philadelphia police commissioner John Timoney to its short list of choices to be the city's next police chief."

The mayor is expected to choose from the list of three.

As we've been saying for the past month, Bill Bratton is the only one who can reform that corrupt, scandal-ridden department.

Update: More on the three finalists and reaction to their selection is in today's LA Times, free registration required, here and here. For reactions to no "insider" from the LAPD being chosen, go here.

Marcos Daniel Jiménez is the new United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. He gave his first interview to the Miami Business Review, published here.

The budget for the district is $45 million.

"There are about 225 Assistant U.S. Attorneys and 205 support personnel in a district that sprawls from Key West north to Sebastian and west to Sebring. Another 40 "special" AUSAs employed by a variety of federal agencies, including the SEC and the IRS, report to Jiménez."

"It is one of the three or four biggest federal prosecutor's offices in the nation, and the district is among the busiest. Last year, more federal trials were held in South Florida than anywhere else."

Jimenez discussed how he intends to direct his office's $45 million in annual resources.

"In his view, the unequivocal top priority in South Florida since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks is anti-terrorism enforcement....'Fifteen of the 19 hijackers lived here, you don't have to say much more than that,' Jiménez says."

One big increase expected is in the number of money laundering prosecutions. Miami already leads the country in the number of such cases, largely due to drug crimes, but now it will go after terror cases the same way. Jimenez plans to use the new provisions in the Patriot Act to step up the effort.

Jimenez says his office will also continue to be aggressive in prosecuting drug crimes, health care and medicare fraud, guns and violent crimes.

Sounds like defense lawyers will be in big demand in Florida, if anyone's looking for work. Just make sure you don't take your fees in cash, or you'll likely end up being a defendant too.

The New York Times editorial today on The Politics of War makes some good points:

"Before risking the lives of American troops, Democrats and Republicans should closely examine Iraq options and make a decision on the merits rather than on the advice of their campaign strategists."

"The draft resolution proposed by Mr. Bush yesterday would give him virtually a free hand in attacking Iraq and trying to oust Mr. Hussein. The use of force may prove necessary, but there first needs to be a serious effort to give Baghdad one last chance to comply voluntarily with the U.N.'s disarmament demands. Working with the fractious Security Council can be maddening, but the effort must be made before Washington turns to the possibility of acting on its own. Democrats owe Mr. Bush careful deliberation about the possibility of war. They do the nation, and Mr. Bush, no service by charging ahead in lock step with the White House."

Drawing on the recent commentary surrounding President Bush's botching of the expression "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me," Uggabugga says:

"This brings to mind the whole set of malapropisms by the President - commonly referred to as Bushisms. These Bushisms haven't been analyzed in any thorough manner, so we decided to take a look at the current set, and see if there was a pattern. There is. An apparent failure to translate thoughts into coherent speech, which manifests itself in several distinct ways..."

Uggabugga has made a chart of Bushisms, complete with analysis.

It's a fun read.

The AP reports that the Supreme Court of Washington State has issued a new ruling on the state's voyeuerism law.

"Photographing or videotaping up a woman's skirt in a public place doesn't violate a voyeurism law, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday. The unanimous ruling found that the law only protects people in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court rejected prosecutors' arguments that people reasonably expect privacy under their clothing."

In unanimously reversing the convictions of two men, one of whom took the photos with plans to sell them on the internet, the Court ruled (in an opinion authored by one of four women judges on the court):

"Although Glas' and Sorrells' actions are reprehensible, we agree that the voyeurism statute, as written, does not prohibit upskirt photography in a public location."

You can access the full opinion on the court's website.

A lawyer in Honolulu has asked us to mention that the federal courthouse in Honolulu no longer allows palm pilots and other pda's to be brought inside. He wants to know if any other federal courthouses have this rule (Denver does not, at least as of last week when ours went through security just fine) and what other lawyers think about it. His email address is dk@thedefense.com

Apparently, there is concern that the pda's could be used to surreptitiously record sound and pictures, and that they might be altered to conceal firearms or explosive devices. Here is the Honolulu's Court Order.

And while we are on legal stuff, we thought we'd mention a new, free web resource for people charged with crime in New York--put out by the criminal defense law firm of Shalley & Murray.

New York City Criminal Court Arraignments Information contains "specific, detailed information about New York City criminal court arraignments, including directions, locations, hours, information about bail, and specific step by step analysis of the arraignment process (including explanations of notices) in an easy to understand, simple to use format for the layperson. There is also a section about New York Crimes in which the user can look up crimes in New York by name, Penal Code Section number, or category and a basic sentencing chart with directions for users to get a rough idea about the possible range of sentences in New York State."

We looked, it's a real nice site and a valuable public resource.

Bill O'Reilly of Fox News has started a firestorm in the murder case of Danielle Van Dam in San Diego. After a three month trial, the jury found the defendant David Westerfield guilty of the kidnap and murder and recommended he be sentenced to death. Westerfield was aggressively defended by esteemed San Diego defense lawyer Steven Feldman.

O'Reilly is filing an ethics complaints against Mr. Westerfield's lawyers because of media reports that Mr. Westerfield had agreed to plead guilty and take a life sentence before Danielle's body was found. This wasn't presented to the jury because in California and elsewhere, pretrial plea bargaining can't be revealed to jury.

Mr. O'Reilly believes that if Mr. Feldman knew his client committed the murder, it was unethical of him to suggest to the jury that a stranger could have done it. Evidence was presented at trial that the Van Dam parents had allowed strangers into their home in connection with their "swinging lifestyle" (as the press referred to it.) No evidence was presented by the prosecution at trial that put Westerfield inside the Van Dam home from which the seven year old Danielle was kidnapped.

Defense lawyers are defending Westerfield's lawyers. Here is an article from the Copley News Service (we found it on Lexis.com but it is likely online somewhere.)