Sunday, November 3, 2013

United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan case brief

United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan case brief summary
407 U.S. 297 (1972)

CASE SYNOPSIS
Upon writ of certiorari to review a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holding that electronic surveillance of defendant's conversations without prior judicial approval was unlawful, and affirming an order against the government to make full disclosure to defendant of his overheard conversations.

CASE FACTS
Defendant was charged with the dynamite bombing of a CIA office. Defendant, and his co-defendants, moved to compel the government to disclose certain electronic surveillance information and to conduct a hearing to determine whether this information "tainted" the evidence on which the indictment was based. The government asserted that the surveillance was lawful, though conducted without prior judicial approval, as a reasonable exercise of the President's power to protect the national security. The appellate court held, however, that the surveillance violated U.S. Constitutional Amendment IV, and thereby affirmed the order requiring the government to make full disclosure to defendant of his overheard conversations.

DISCUSSION
  • Upon writ of certiorari, the court affirmed the appellate court decision. 
  • The court found that the government's concerns did not justify departure from the customary requirement of judicial approval prior to initiation of a search or surveillance. 
  • The court held that prior judicial approval was required for the type of domestic security surveillance involved in this case and that such approval could be made in accordance with such reasonable standards as Congress prescribed.

CONCLUSION

The court affirmed a judgment of the appellate court holding that electronic surveillance of defendant's conversations without prior judicial approval was unlawful, and affirming an order against the government to make full disclosure to defendant of his overheard conversations. The court found that the government's security concerns did not justify departure from the requirement of judicial approval prior to a search or surveillance.

Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Ins and Outs of Class Action Lawsuits: A Comprehensive Guide

Sometimes, you may buy a product only to find it defective. To make it worse, your search for the product reveals mass complaints. You can ...