Dotcom's mega mess: New Zealand's role in a foreign search warrant request

<p>In January 2012, the United States requested the assistance of the New Zealand government under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 (MACMA) to execute a search warrant at Kim Dotcom’s residence. A few months later, the High Court held that this warrant was invalid and its execution unlawful. The case illustrates the importance of effective cooperation between two executive authorities. This article will build on the case and argue that the flexibility of MACMA provisions must be used by domestic authorities to ensure that a request accords with domestic law and fulfils the purpose of the Act. The flexibility of these provisions are even more important to utilise under the new landscape of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, enacted after Dotcom v Attorney-General, to ensure that New Zealand can register and enforce a foreign search warrant request.</p>

Dotcom's mega mess: New Zealand's role in a foreign search warrant request

<p>In January 2012, the United States requested the assistance of the New Zealand government under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 (MACMA) to execute a search warrant at Kim Dotcom’s residence. A few months later, the High Court held that this warrant was invalid and its execution unlawful. The case illustrates the importance of effective cooperation between two executive authorities. This article will build on the case and argue that the flexibility of MACMA provisions must be used by domestic authorities to ensure that a request accords with domestic law and fulfils the purpose of the Act. The flexibility of these provisions are even more important to utilise under the new landscape of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, enacted after Dotcom v Attorney-General, to ensure that New Zealand can register and enforce a foreign search warrant request.</p>

Sachfahndung nach einem Raubmord in Saqāwa

This article presents the edition of a late 3rd/9th- or early 4th/10th-century search warrant for stolen goods (P.Cair.EgLib.inv. 536v). The scribe reports that two black men (aswadayn) were traveling on two donkeys, one of which was also loaded with a saddlebag of money, jewellery and clothes. Upon reaching the Upper Egyptian village of Saqāwa, the two black men were assaulted and murdered, and the goods and donkeys stolen. This document corroborates descriptions in historical works of frequent rebel attacks in various regions of Egypt in the 3rd/9th and 4rd/10th centuries.

Warrantless Search and Seizures by the South African Police Service: Weighing up the Right to Privacy versus the Prevention of Crime

The constitutional right to privacy is enshrined in section 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. It is premised on the notion that all persons should be protected from intrusions on their privacy by any person or institution. The Constitutional Court has also, on numerous occasions, held that the right to privacy is bolstered by its connection with the right to human dignity. It is undeniable that every person's right to privacy should be protected. However, a person's right to privacy is violated when police officials conduct warrantless search and seizure operations. Generally section 22 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides for warrantless search and seizure operations when a police official has a reasonable suspicion that a search warrant will be issued to him and that a delay in obtaining such a warrant would defeat the object of the search. Warrantless searches are important for the prevention of crime, but recent case law has suggested that there has been a progressive shift towards protecting the right to privacy of the individual subjected to warrantless searches, since there are a number of laws besides section 22 that regulate warrantless searches and which have been declared to be constitutionally invalid. This article seeks to demonstrate that the current regulatory framework for warrantless searches should be reviewed in order to protect the legitimacy of the police as well as the dignity and privacy of the citizens of South Africa.

Law Enforcement Challenges to Gathering Intelligence in the Street

Intelligence gathering by law enforcement officers has been used in the conviction of criminals for many years in the United States. Law enforcement officers must ensure that the information gathered and seized does not violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. However, officers, even though acting in the spirit of the law, may not be in legal compliance. This chapter identifies and discusses the requirements of a search warrant, the legally accepted exceptions to the search warrant requirements in the United States, and reviews several historical and modern United States Supreme Court cases on the gathering of intelligence by officers.

Fourth Amendment Protections of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs: Patient Privacy in the Opioid Crisis

The opioid crisis is one of the largest public health problems in the history of the United States. Prescription drug monitoring programs (“PDMPs”)—state databases containing the records of all prescriptions for controlled substances written in the state—have emerged as a means to track opioid prescribing and use. While PDMPs are typically used as a tool for physicians to inform their prescribing practices, many states also permit law enforcement to access PDMPs when investigating controlled substance distribution, often without prior judicial approval. Such law enforcement use of PDMPs raises serious questions of patient privacy. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy and has been interpreted to require law enforcement have probable cause and a search warrant before infringing upon an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Several courts have held that patients have no reasonable expectation of privacy, or a severely diminished expectation of privacy, in their prescription drug records held in PDMPs. As support, courts rely on the third-party doctrine because the information is disclosed to physicians and then held by the state; the highly regulated nature of the prescription drug industry; and the statutory framework of the Controlled Substances Act. Such analysis disregards patients’ expectation of privacy in their personal health information, the confidentiality in the physician-patient relationship, and the resulting patient incentives not to seek care. Therefore, this Article argues that law enforcement must have probable cause and a search warrant to access PDMPs because the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause and warrant requirements do not apply.

Prosecuting Attorneys in a Democracy – A California Perspective

A prosecuting attorney in a democracy is very important in the processing of criminal cases- from pre-filing to final appeal. Much of the involvement of the District Attorney, both before a criminal case is filed, and during the prosecution of the case, stems from the “Exclusionary Rule”. It is the usual case that the police will bring their investigation, their arrest warrant or search warrant affidavit to a District Attorney to review it prior to taking it to the judge. In this connection, District Attorneys will themselves reject 5-10% of the warrant requests submitted to them for approval, often asking law enforcement to do some further investigation before resubmitting the warrant. Furthermore, because of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, only the District Attorney or the California State Attorney General can make the decision to file or not file a case. This Article illustrates the impact of such discretion. The problem of democracy is strictly connected to the process of DA’s selection, what has also been here presented. Another fundamental issue is a role of DA in voir dire, mainly because jury trials are guaranteed by the federal Constitution and are associated with the idea of democracy. Separation of Powers and Judicial Control of the DA, the police, and the sentencing of those convicted of crimes have been analyzed from the perspective of the California law. Additionally, the article includes final comments on the technological progress and its impact on criminal law and democracy. All the conclusions have been made in reference to Author’s experience as Assistant DA in California.

Foreign aggairs of the customs organization and operation activities on the example United States of America

In modern developed countries it is important to protect national economic interests, and therefore there is a need to improve cooperation between customs authorities to combat smuggling and the illegal movement of goods across the customs border of the countries. This article focuses on the study of foreign experience of functioning of the bodies authorised to apply measures of operational-search activities in the system of combating smuggling and illegal movement of goods across the customs border by the example of the United States of America. Every year the customs border of America cross goods valued at a trillion dollars as the total imports, and therefore the customs authorities of the United States of America require the improvement of existing technologies for the protection of the state border. New technologies play a crucial role in the customs of the United States of America. Today in America, the custom is the only governmental Agency in which its officials have the authority for the inspection of people, goods and vehicles crossing the border without a search warrant. It should be noted that the customs service of the United States of America has also partnered with the police departments, the Federal Bureau of investigation in providing customs information that would allow them to detect, and in some cases to predict organized crime, i.e. the police investigate. In addition, the customs service of the United States of America, as the main government body that has the right to apprehend criminals at the border, faced with a complex, multifaceted threat to the smuggling of goods, narcotic drugs and so on. But because the customs service is working on these tasks with the use of modern achievements of science and practice through a variety of approaches, directions: intelligence, operational, experienced, which bring a positive result. In case of detection by customs officers of the United States of America violations of the customs legislation, they have the right to conduct an investigation on this fact, as well as having the right to seize the goods which are subject to export outside the country. In addition, the customs authorities of the United States of America have the right to confiscate without a court order any goods that you intended to illegally vivactis from the country, and vehicle that was to be used for these purposes.