Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Courts have long acknowledged that searches of computers and other mediums storing electronic information (ESI) often involve a degree of intrusiveness much greater in quantity and in kind from searches of other containers. So one would have expected that given that the computer has been around for several decades including the use of the ubiquitous cell phone as one's "always at the ready" personal computer, the particularity rules for search warrants targeting ESI would be clearly defined. Sorry, kemo sabe, not today. Accordingly, this article will review some recent case law that spotlights this ever developing area of the law.
The Fourth Amendment's Warrant clause provides that "… no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (Emphasis supplied.) U.S. Const. Amend. IV. When written, our founders' major concern was the so-called "general warrants" of the King used to harass and arrest anyone who dared question his authority. The founding generation "… reviled 'general warrants' and 'writs of assistance' of the colonial era, which allowed British officers to rummage through homes in an unrestrained search for evidence of criminal activity. Opposition to such searches was in fact one of the driving forces behind the revolution itself." Riley v California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2494 (2014) (Roberts, C.J.) See, e.g., Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84 (1987); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 467 (1971).
The presumption of regularity that accompanies the issuance of a search warrant is undermined by deficits in its particularity. "The uniformly applied rule is that a search conducted pursuant to a warrant that fails to conform to the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment is unconstitutional. Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (1965); United States v. Marti, 421 F.2d 1263, 1268-1269 (2nd Cir. 1970).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
End of year collections are crucial for law firms because they allow them to maximize their revenue for the year, impacting profitability, partner distributions and bonus calculations by ensuring outstanding invoices are paid before the year closes, which is especially important for meeting financial targets and managing cash flow throughout the firm.
Law firms and companies in the professional services space must recognize that clients are conducting extensive online research before making contact. Prospective buyers are no longer waiting for meetings with partners or business development professionals to understand the firm's offerings. Instead, they are seeking out information on their own, and they want to do it quickly and efficiently.
Through a balanced approach that combines incentives with accountability, firms can navigate the complexities of returning to the office while maintaining productivity and morale.
The paradigm of legal administrative support within law firms has undergone a remarkable transformation over the last decade. But this begs the question: are the changes to administrative support successful, and do law firms feel they are sufficiently prepared to meet future business needs?
Counsel should include in its analysis of a case the taxability of the anticipated and sought after damages as the tax effect could be substantial.