You are here

Argument: Constitutional Ruling On Metadata Unnecessary

While there has been a lot of celebration of Judge Leon's opinion that the National Security Agency's collection of telephone metadata likely violates the federal Constitution, Just Security's Steve Vladek argues that the district judge faces being reversed by the D.C. Circuit on his holding that the plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act "claim (challenging the metadata program on statutory grounds) is precluded by section 215 itself."

The result? "Then that will bring the statutory question to the fore–for the Court of Appeals to either decide as a matter of first impression or send back to Judge Leon," Vladek writes. "And if, as many (including me) believe, the program can’t be reconciled with the statute, then we’ll end up in the same place (the program in its present form will be enjoined), without ever having to answer the thorny and far more far-reaching Fourth Amendment question concerning twenty-first century expectations of privacy in metadata."

Injunction Sought Against Aereo in Utah

Another battlefront has opened up against Aereo's Internet TV service in Utah. Two broadcast TV affiliates are seeking a preliminary injunction against Aereo's service because the TV stations argue it "'engages in public performances for which it must obtain copyright licenses,'" the Salt Lake Tribune reports.

Aereo streams free broadcast TV programming through individualized antennas dedicated to each of its subscribers. A Second Circuit decision rejecting the argument that Aereo's service infringes copyright is on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

CT Task Force Votes to Narrow Freedom of Information

The Connecticut legislative panel, appointed to examine restrictions on access to records in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, voted 14-3 to recommend "setting up a new system that will allow the public, including members of the media, to privately inspect [crime photos, 911 audio tapes and other information from homicides], also including video and internal police communications from a homicide. They would then go through a process to obtain actual copies, ultimately having to prove there's a strong public interest in the information," the Associated Press reports. It is not unknown if Connecticut legislators will adopt the recommendation.

The panel would shift the burden onto the media or other members of the public requesting the information.

The taskforce also recommended that "the identity of minors who witness a crime of violence, sexual offense or drug offense should not be disclosed," the AP reports.

FCC Withdraws Proposal to Weaken Media Ownership Rules

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Federal Communications Commission, at the behest of its new chairman, has withdrawn a plan to weaken the ban on a radio station and newspaper in the same market having the same owner. "The proposal would have also paved the way for smaller TV stations to own newspapers, a change pushed by the struggling newspaper industry," The Journal also reports.

Second Circuit Rules Warrantless GPS Tracking Was In Good Faith

Even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Jones the law enforcement's installation of GPS devices on suspects' vehicles  are searches under the Fourth Amendment, the Second Circuit has reasoned '"Jones left open the question of whether the warrantless use of GPS devices would be 'reasonable—and thus lawful—under the Fourth Amendment [where] officers ha[ve] reasonable suspicion, and indeed probable cause' to conduct a search,'" according to The New York Law Journal. The GPS tracking of the defendants in the case before the Second Circuit was not done with delibrate, reckless or gross disregard for their Fourth Amendment rights and was done with reasonable reliance on court precedent before the U.S. Supreme Court decided Jones, The Journal also reports. So the panel decided the evidence related to the search was in good faith and didn't need to be excluded.
 

Judge Rules NSA Phone Surveillance Likely Unconstitutional

A federal judge ruled today that the National Security Agency's surveillance of most phone calls made in the United States or to the United States is likely unconstitutional, Politico reports: "U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon found that the program appears to violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. He also said the Justice Department had failed to demonstrate that collecting the so-called metadata had helped to head off terrorist attacks."

Politico further reports: "Leon’s 68-page ruling is the first significant legal setback for the NSA’s surveillance program since it was disclosed in June in news stories based on leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The metadata program has been approved repeatedly by numerous judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and at least one judge sitting in a criminal case."

The judge granted a preliminary injunction but promptly stayed it to allow for an appeal.

Third Circuit Will Take Up GPS Tracking En Banc

The Legal Intelligencer's Saranac Hale Spencer reports that the Third Circuit has decided to take up en banc a case involving GPS tracking. A three- judge panel ruled that a warrant was needed for police to attach a GPS tracker to a suspect's vehicle. "Prosecutors sought appeal on the issue of whether the police officers had shown objective good faith in their actions, which would allow the evidence they gathered through the GPS tracking to survive," The Legal reports.

U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up Issue of First Impression Involving International Abduction

The Washington Post's Robert Barnes reports on oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on where custody proceedings should be held in international custody disputes. While the case is the third the justices have heard about the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in four years, this current case involves an issue of first impression: "The Hague Convention says that if a motion is filed within 12 months of the abduction, the child must be returned to the country of origin. But after that, a judge may consider whether a child has become 'settled' in his or her new home, and whether it would not be in the child’s interest to be uprooted again for custody hearings. [Father Manuel Jose] Lozano couldn’t file the motion before the 12-month deadline because he didn’t know where his daughter was. He is asking the court to find that the 12-month period does not start until a parent locates the missing child."

Legal Community Swept Into Action By Sandy

Submitted by Amaris Elliott-Engel on Mon, 12/16/2013 - 08:46

An excerpt of my piece for the Connecticut Law Tribune about the legal impacts of Superstorm Sandy:

 Superstorm Sandy struck a less-devastating blow to Connecticut than it did to New Jersey and New York. Still, the Oct. 29, 2012, hurricane cut a wide swath in terms of affecting the state's legal community.

There are expectations of litigation over insurance coverage. Attorneys working for governmental agencies have helped to put into place better disaster planning. And there have been pro bono efforts to assist storm victims.

As of May 2013, 47,002 residential-property claims were reported in Connecticut as a result of the storm. There were also 4,460 commercial-property claims, 2,772 flood claims, and 1,212 business interruption claims, according to the Connecticut Department of Banking & Insurance.

Disaster Litigation

While it's been nearly 14 months since the storm hit, Sandy-inspired litigation will take a while to fully develop, said Ryan Suerth, of Ryan Suerth LLC in Hartford, who represents policyholders. He explained that it often takes more than a year for policyholders to learn that their insurance claims have been denied or that they will get less money than they had hoped.

"Any major weather is going to lead to litigation, just for the reason there is a lot of damage and not all of it gets covered by insurance," Suerth said.

Michael McCormack, a Hinckley Allen attorney who chairs the Connecticut Bar Association's Insurance Law Section, said he has seen few Sandy-related claims being filed in court so far. One reason, he said, is "the insurance companies responded quickly. They worked with policyholders as best as they could." Secondly, he said, many consumers lack flood insurance, meaning that instead of making a claim on their homeowner's policy they must apply to Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Flood Insurance Program.

But Regen O'Malley, an insurance defense lawyer with O'Connell, Attmore & Morris in Hartford, predicted that Sandy will ultimately result in more legal activity than did 2011's Tropical Storm Irene. One insurance issue that often prompts legal disputes is the question of whether property damage was caused by rain or flooding.

"It really depends upon what the policy says [is covered] for those types of claims," O'Malley said. "And with [Hurricane] Katrina and now Sandy, there might be multiple causes. There might be wind, flood, storm surge and something else."

For some policies, coverage is denied if multiple factors caused damage and some of those factors are not listed in the policy.

 Gregory Podolak, of Saxe Doernberger & Vita in Hamden, explained that some homeowner polices cover only "named perils." The most common of these include lightning, fire, rain, windstorms and theft. But exactly how these terms are defined in a specific policy can have a dramatic impact on a consumer's "coverage position," Podolak said. Many policies have specific deductibles and coverage limits related to specific named perils, he added. And Legal issues arise when there are multiple perils that could have caused property damage, he agreed.

Another insurance issue arising from Sandy is business interruptions caused by the loss of electric power. Some parts of the state lost power for a week or more, and businesses filed claims seeking lost revenues for days they could not operate.

"What Sandy and Irene have done is highlight some of the issues that don't come to the forefront as often," Podolak said.

Cases that do go into litigation may involve claims of bad faith by insurers and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act. There also may be litigation against insurance brokers and agents for allegedly not recommending sufficient coverage, attorneys said.

Pages

Subscribe to Cultivated Compendium RSS