What is the name of your state? Arizona
I will start that this case would be a first to any inspiring young attorney. It is beyond a reasonable doubt that Law enEnorcement broke two federal stautes 42 USC 1983 illegal search, and the Electronic Privacy and Control Act EPCA. This case is a perfect example of what not to do as an Law Enforcement Agent according to the DOJ search manuel. This case has two precedent setting cases Ortega v. O' Connor and the Town pulham v. Blok. below are the circumstances that happen to me a public employee.
The search of the plantiffs computer by the FDA was an illegal, warrantless search.
While the FAA had a right to investigate or seize plantiffs computer in connection with an investigation of any work-related wrongdoing, that is not in fact what happened. The FAA was contacted by the FDA specifically for the purpose of obtaining permission to conduct a warrantless search of the plantiffs work computer for a criminal investigation. The FDA was very clear about the purpose of its request as reflected in its letter dated 02/12/04.
The FAA then consented to a criminal search of plantiffs work computer by law enforcement. There is no evidence that plantiff was under investigation by the FAA for any type of work related misconduct. In government workplaces, employers acting in their official capacity generally cannot consent to a law enforcement search of their employees' offices. See United States v. Blok, 188 F.2d 1019, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 1951) (concluding that a government supervisor cannot consent to a law enforcement search of a government employee's desk); Taketa, 923 F.2d at 673; Kahan, 350 F. Supp. at 791. The question in such cases is not whether the public employer had common authority to consent to the search, but rather whether the combined law enforcement and employer search satisfied the Fourth Amendment standards of O'Connor v. Ortega.
As the FDA agents did not obtain a warrant for the search of plantiffs computer, and there were no exigent circumstances justifying their failure to secure such a warrant, the FDA’s search of the plantiffs computer was in fact an illegal search. It is well established that the results of an illegal search are inadmissible as evidence.
The plantiff is now facing termination based on the illegally obtained evidence. His mame has been tainted and there is no question that damages can be assed automatically under EPCA.
I am looking for a young aggressive attorney who is willing to be the next Rain Maker.
I will start that this case would be a first to any inspiring young attorney. It is beyond a reasonable doubt that Law enEnorcement broke two federal stautes 42 USC 1983 illegal search, and the Electronic Privacy and Control Act EPCA. This case is a perfect example of what not to do as an Law Enforcement Agent according to the DOJ search manuel. This case has two precedent setting cases Ortega v. O' Connor and the Town pulham v. Blok. below are the circumstances that happen to me a public employee.
The search of the plantiffs computer by the FDA was an illegal, warrantless search.
While the FAA had a right to investigate or seize plantiffs computer in connection with an investigation of any work-related wrongdoing, that is not in fact what happened. The FAA was contacted by the FDA specifically for the purpose of obtaining permission to conduct a warrantless search of the plantiffs work computer for a criminal investigation. The FDA was very clear about the purpose of its request as reflected in its letter dated 02/12/04.
The FAA then consented to a criminal search of plantiffs work computer by law enforcement. There is no evidence that plantiff was under investigation by the FAA for any type of work related misconduct. In government workplaces, employers acting in their official capacity generally cannot consent to a law enforcement search of their employees' offices. See United States v. Blok, 188 F.2d 1019, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 1951) (concluding that a government supervisor cannot consent to a law enforcement search of a government employee's desk); Taketa, 923 F.2d at 673; Kahan, 350 F. Supp. at 791. The question in such cases is not whether the public employer had common authority to consent to the search, but rather whether the combined law enforcement and employer search satisfied the Fourth Amendment standards of O'Connor v. Ortega.
As the FDA agents did not obtain a warrant for the search of plantiffs computer, and there were no exigent circumstances justifying their failure to secure such a warrant, the FDA’s search of the plantiffs computer was in fact an illegal search. It is well established that the results of an illegal search are inadmissible as evidence.
The plantiff is now facing termination based on the illegally obtained evidence. His mame has been tainted and there is no question that damages can be assed automatically under EPCA.
I am looking for a young aggressive attorney who is willing to be the next Rain Maker.