United States v. Warshak
Argued in June 16, 2010
Argued in June 16, 2010
Decided in December 14, 2010
Decided as a criminal case by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holding that government agents violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by compelling his Internet Service Provider (ISP) to turn over his e-mails without first obtaining a search warrant based on probable cause, it is one of the top four social media law cases in 2010. Warshak claimed that the compelled disclosure violated his Fourth Amendment rights. At last, Warshak's sentence was vacated and remanded to the lower court because the court's previous ruling lacked an adequate explanation of losses to justify the sentence. However, the emails were not excluded from evidence because the government agents relied in good faith on the provisions of the Stored Communications Act (SCA).
And Six Circuit has been concluded 1) AFFIRMED Warshak's convictions; 2) AFFIRMED the forfeiture judgments against him, VACATED the 25 year sentence, and REMANDED for resentencing; 3) AFFIRMED Harriet's convictions except those related to money laundering, which were REVERSED; 4) VACATED and REMANDED Harriet's sentence; 5) AFFIRMED proceeds-money forfeiture judgment against Harriet; 6) REVERSED money-laundering forfeiture judgment against Harriet.
The exclusionary rule, improperly obtained evidence cannot be used, is a good principle to protect our right of privacy. It applies to all persons within the United States whether they are citizens, legal or illegal immigrants, or visitors. This can eliminate the power of government. In this case, good faith was used; it is The Supreme Court allows exceptions for errors made by police. I think the good faith provision has both advantages and disadvantages. It is more convenient to cops when they are doing the investigation. But it may violate the privacy act as there are unreasonable search sometimes. Nonetheless, I think the outcome is fair. Warshak’s sentence was vacated and remanded since he really committed a crime, but the evidences were not excluded because of the good faith provision. Constitution is considered to protect us. It can both protect our right to privacy, and maintain the power of police and government.
No comments:
Post a Comment