MENU

Criminal Law & Procedure

Subscribe in a reader

Subcommittees

  • Corporate and Computer Crime
  • Criminal Procedure Rules
  • Death Penalty
  • Juvenile Justice
  • Sentencing and Corrections
  • Victims

2017 National Lawyers Convention

Administrative Agencies and the Regulatory State
November 16, 2017
red tape flag tilted

The 2017 National Lawyers Convention is scheduled for Thursday, November 16 through Saturday, November 18 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. The topic of this year's convention is: Administrative Agencies and the Regulatory State. More information will be posted soon!

Supreme Court Preview: What Is in Store for October Term 2017?

Co-Sponsored by the Faculty Division and the Practice Groups
Jan Crawford, Kyle Duncan, Samuel Estreicher, Orin S. Kerr, Andrew J. Pincus, Carrie Severino September 27, 2017

This event is being live-streamed.

October 2nd will mark the first day of oral arguments for the 2017 Supreme Court term. The Court's docket already includes major cases involving Federal Courts, redistricting, the First Amendment, election law, business law, class actions, international and immigration issues, Alien Tort Statute, and the Fourth Amendment.

The full list of cases granted thus far for the upcoming term can be viewed on SCOTUSblog here. The panelists will also discuss the current composition and the future of the Court.

Featuring:

  • Kyle Duncan, Schaerr Duncan, LLP
  • Prof. Samuel Estreicher, New York University School of Law
  • Prof. Orin Kerr, George Washington University Law School
  • Andrew Pincus, Mayer Brown, LLP
  • Carrie Severino, Judicial Crisis Network
  • Moderator: Jan Crawford, CBS News

Changes to DOJ Corporate Prosecution Policy?

Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Teleforum
George J. Terwilliger, John C. Richter September 22, 2017

On September 14 , Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein signaled that changes might be coming to DOJ's corporate crime prosecution policy. His comments, following a speech at the Heritage Foundation, expanded on similar comments made by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in April. In our Teleforum, George Terwilliger and John Richter will discuss what those changes might be and offer their insights as the Justice Department considers reforms. 

Featuring:

  • Mr. John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding
  • Hon. George J. Terwilliger III, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP

The Third Party Doctrine and Carpenter v. United States - Podcast

Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Podcast
Jim Harper, Orin S. Kerr August 18, 2017

According to the Fourth Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated[.]” But how does that provision apply to the vast troves of information that Americans and businesses increasingly collect, send, receive, and store?

On June 5, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Carpenter v. United States to resolve the question of whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless gathering of historical cellular phone records that include location information, also known as historical cell-site location information (CSLI). Judge Raymond M. Kethledge wrote for a panel of the Sixth Circuit that “although the content of personal communications is private, the information necessary to get those communications from point A to point B is not.” Historical CSLI, Judge Kethledge wrote, “fall[s] on the unprotected side of [the] line” because it is routing information used to “facilitate personal communications, rather than part of the content of those communications themselves.” Thus, the government does not need a warrant to obtain the information.

The doctrine applied by the Sixth Circuit is called the third-party doctrine. Although an older form of the third-party doctrine was articulated in Ex Parte Jackson (1878), which distinguished between the addressing information for postal mail and its contents, the contemporary third-party doctrine traces its roots to the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test articulated in Katz v. United States(1967). Its modern form is most closely associated with two of Katz’s progeny, United States v. Miller (1976) and Smith v. Maryland (1979). In those cases, the Supreme Court applied Katz and concluded that the information at issue (bank records and information collected by a pen register device) was not entitled to Fourth Amendment protection.

Featuring:

  • Jim Harper, Vice President, Competitive Enterprise Institute
  • Orin S. Kerr, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School

The Third Party Doctrine and Carpenter v. United States

Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Teleforum
Jim Harper, Orin S. Kerr August 14, 2017

According to the Fourth Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated[.]” But how does that provision apply to the vast troves of information that Americans and businesses increasingly collect, send, receive, and store?

On June 5, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Carpenter v. United States to resolve the question of whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless gathering of historical cellular phone records that include location information, also known as historical cell-site location information (CSLI). Judge Raymond M. Kethledge wrote for a panel of the Sixth Circuit that “although the content of personal communications is private, the information necessary to get those communications from point A to point B is not.” Historical CSLI, Judge Kethledge wrote, “fall[s] on the unprotected side of [the] line” because it is routing information used to “facilitate personal communications, rather than part of the content of those communications themselves.” Thus, the government does not need a warrant to obtain the information.

The doctrine applied by the Sixth Circuit is called the third-party doctrine. Although an older form of the third-party doctrine was articulated in Ex Parte Jackson (1878), which distinguished between the addressing information for postal mail and its contents, the contemporary third-party doctrine traces its roots to the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test articulated in Katz v. United States(1967). Its modern form is most closely associated with two of Katz’s progeny, United States v. Miller (1976) and Smith v. Maryland (1979). In those cases, the Supreme Court applied Katz and concluded that the information at issue (bank records and information collected by a pen register device) was not entitled to Fourth Amendment protection.

Featuring: 

  • Jim Harper, Vice President, Competitive Enterprise Institute
  • Orin S. Kerr, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School

Luis v. United States: The Distinction That Makes All the Difference

Federalist Society Review, Volume 18
Dean A. Mazzone August 10, 2017
Civil Forfeiture: Three Recent Cases (Part 1)

Dean Mazzone discusses the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Luis v. United States, which dealt with asset forfeiture and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. After summarizing the arguments of the plurality, concurring, and dissenting opinions, the author briefly discusses asset forfeiture more broadly and the potential ramifications of Luis. [Read Now]

Ransomware, Cybercrime Victims and Law Enforcement - Podcast

Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Podcast
Howard W. Cox, Steven Chabinsky August 09, 2017

Recent headlines make clear the threat posed by cyber criminals, especially those that deploy so-called ransomware.  Although federal law enforcement has urged victims to report cyber incidents and generally recommends that victims not give in to a ransom demand unless all other options are exhausted, a recent report by IBM Security found that 70 percent of businesses infected have paid ransom.

The ransomware epidemic highlights a potential asymmetry of interests between cybercrime victims and law enforcement.  The chief concern of a victim of a ransomware attack may be to regain access to business data and systems, even if paying the ransom funds the perpetrator and potentially leads to further attacks.  Meanwhile, law enforcement has only a limited ability to assist a victim in incident response.  How can cybercrime victims and law enforcement better work together to better protect victim interests and better advance law enforcement's work?

Featuring:

  • Prof. Howard W. Cox, Adjunct Professor, George Washington University
  • Steven Chabinsky, Global Data, Privacy, and Cybersecurity Practice Chair, White & Case LLP

Ransomware, Cybercrime Victims and Law Enforcement

Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Teleforum
Howard W. Cox, Steven Chabinsky August 08, 2017

Recent headlines make clear the threat posed by cyber criminals, especially those that deploy so-called ransomware.  Although federal law enforcement has urged victims to report cyber incidents and generally recommends that victims not give in to a ransom demand unless all other options are exhausted, a recent report by IBM Security found that 70 percent of businesses infected have paid ransom.

The ransomware epidemic highlights a potential asymmetry of interests between cybercrime victims and law enforcement.  The chief concern of a victim of a ransomware attack may be to regain access to business data and systems, even if paying the ransom funds the perpetrator and potentially leads to further attacks.  Meanwhile, law enforcement has only a limited ability to assist a victim in incident response.  How can cybercrime victims and law enforcement better work together to better protect victim interests and better advance law enforcement's work?

Featuring:

  • Prof. Howard W. Cox, Adjunct Professor, George Washington University
  • Steven Chabinsky, Global Data, Privacy, and Cybersecurity Practice Chair, White & Case LLP

 

2017 Annual Supreme Court Round Up - Event Audio/Video

Washington, DC Lawyers Chapter
Miguel Estrada, Douglas R. Cox July 28, 2017

On July 13, 2017, Miguel Estrada of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP delivered the Annual Supreme Court Round Up at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

Featuring:

  • Mr. Miguel Estrada, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
  • Introduction: Mr. Douglas R. Cox, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP

National Press Club
Washington, DC