Confronting Potential Injustice with Preemptive Suppression
<p> Vermont state prosecutors have asked the Vermont Supreme Court to enda state trial judge’s practice of attaching ten restrictions  to all computer search warrants he signs.  According to Professor Paul Ohm of the University Colorado Law School, the Vermont trial judge is not alone. ...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Association of Digital Forensics, Security and Law
2012-12-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law |
| Online Access: | http://ojs.jdfsl.org/index.php/jdfsl/article/view/68 |
| _version_ | 1818034293612478464 |
|---|---|
| author | Robert Vose Simpson |
| author_facet | Robert Vose Simpson |
| author_sort | Robert Vose Simpson |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <p> Vermont state prosecutors have asked the Vermont Supreme Court to enda state trial judge’s practice of attaching ten restrictions  to all computer search warrants he signs.  According to Professor Paul Ohm of the University Colorado Law School, the Vermont trial judge is not alone. Professor Ohm sees a “trend emerging†among federal magistrate judges who are attempting to regulate how officers execute computer warrants. </p><p>This article focuses on Vermont conditions 1-4. I argue that the Vermont Supreme Court should reject these conditions. They are gratuitously damaging to Vermont law enforcement and ultimately ineffective in limiting the intrusiveness of computer searches.  In sum, these conditions:</p><p>(1)  Are based on an unwarranted judicial presumption that Vermont police officers who obtain warrants to search computers will deliberately choose to violate the Fourth Amendment when they execute these warrants;</p><p>(2)  Require police officers[who seek a warrant to search computers to agree, as condition to obtaining the warrant, that they will ignore, and never use, any evidence of a crime that has been legally obtained  under the “plain view doctrine†during the execution of the warrant; and</p><p>(3)  Require police officers who seek a warrant to search computers to agree, as a condition to obtaining the warrant, that they (as investigating officers) will not be involved in the execution of the warrant, thereby increasing the likelihood of delay, and lost evidence as well as the likelihood that the search will be broader than necessary.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-10T06:36:52Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-c384cbabb8404198a7f80c7c6c523dce |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1558-7215 1558-7223 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-10T06:36:52Z |
| publishDate | 2012-12-01 |
| publisher | Association of Digital Forensics, Security and Law |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law |
| spelling | doaj.art-c384cbabb8404198a7f80c7c6c523dce2022-12-22T01:58:54ZengAssociation of Digital Forensics, Security and LawJournal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law1558-72151558-72232012-12-017421507Confronting Potential Injustice with Preemptive SuppressionRobert Vose Simpson0Champlain College<p> Vermont state prosecutors have asked the Vermont Supreme Court to enda state trial judge’s practice of attaching ten restrictions  to all computer search warrants he signs.  According to Professor Paul Ohm of the University Colorado Law School, the Vermont trial judge is not alone. Professor Ohm sees a “trend emerging†among federal magistrate judges who are attempting to regulate how officers execute computer warrants. </p><p>This article focuses on Vermont conditions 1-4. I argue that the Vermont Supreme Court should reject these conditions. They are gratuitously damaging to Vermont law enforcement and ultimately ineffective in limiting the intrusiveness of computer searches.  In sum, these conditions:</p><p>(1)  Are based on an unwarranted judicial presumption that Vermont police officers who obtain warrants to search computers will deliberately choose to violate the Fourth Amendment when they execute these warrants;</p><p>(2)  Require police officers[who seek a warrant to search computers to agree, as condition to obtaining the warrant, that they will ignore, and never use, any evidence of a crime that has been legally obtained  under the “plain view doctrine†during the execution of the warrant; and</p><p>(3)  Require police officers who seek a warrant to search computers to agree, as a condition to obtaining the warrant, that they (as investigating officers) will not be involved in the execution of the warrant, thereby increasing the likelihood of delay, and lost evidence as well as the likelihood that the search will be broader than necessary.</p>http://ojs.jdfsl.org/index.php/jdfsl/article/view/68 |
| spellingShingle | Robert Vose Simpson Confronting Potential Injustice with Preemptive Suppression Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law |
| title | Confronting Potential Injustice with Preemptive Suppression |
| title_full | Confronting Potential Injustice with Preemptive Suppression |
| title_fullStr | Confronting Potential Injustice with Preemptive Suppression |
| title_full_unstemmed | Confronting Potential Injustice with Preemptive Suppression |
| title_short | Confronting Potential Injustice with Preemptive Suppression |
| title_sort | confronting potential injustice with preemptive suppression |
| url | http://ojs.jdfsl.org/index.php/jdfsl/article/view/68 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT robertvosesimpson confrontingpotentialinjusticewithpreemptivesuppression |