Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Doyle, Charles" in: author
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Prosecution of Public Corruption: An Abridged Overview of Amendments Under H.R. 2572 and S. 401 [September 21, 2011]
"The Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act (S. 401) and the Clean Up Government Act of 2011 (H.R. 2572) are virtually identical proposals, one introduced by Senator Leahy and the other by Representative Sensenbrenner. Federal officials prosecute corruption--public and private; federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal--under a number of statutes including those that outlaw bribery, bribery involve federal programs, mail fraud, and/or wire fraud. The bills would expand the scope of these and related federal statutes, increase the penalties for those convicted, and amend related procedures to facilitate prosecution. The bills represent a merger of two prior efforts. One involved reactions to the Supreme Court's 'Skilling' decision which limited honest services mail and wire fraud prosecutions to cases of bribery and kickbacks. The other involved a more general concern over the state of law in the area of public corruption. The Senate Judiciary Committee addressed this second concern when it reported S. 1946 to floor during the 110th Congress. The bills track many of the provisions in that earlier proposal. They also mirror proposals offered in the last Congress in the wake of 'Skilling.'"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2011-09-21
-
Deprivation of Honest Services as a Basis for Federal Mail and Wire Fraud Convictions [September 16, 2011]
"The United States Supreme Court in 'Skilling v. United States' construed the honest services branch of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes to reach no more than cases involving bribery or kickbacks. The mail and wire fraud statutes, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1341 and 1343, impose criminal penalties for the use of mail or interstate wire communications to deprive another of money or property through a 'scheme or artifice to defraud.' In its 1987 'McNally' decision, the Court had held that while the fraud statutes reached schemes to deprive another of property rights, they did not cover 'the intangible right of the citizenry to good government.' Congress responded almost immediately by enacting the 'honest services' statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 1346, which declares that the phrase 'scheme or artifice to defraud' in the mail and wire statutes also encompasses depriving 'another of the intangible right of honest services.' In its 2009 term, the Court was presented with three honest services cases--'Skilling', 'Black', and 'Weyhrauch'. Each offered the Court a slightly different prerequisite for an honest services conviction--for 'Weyhrauch', a public official, it was an underlying state law violation; for Black, in the private sector, it was foreseeable harm; for 'Skilling', an Enron executive, it was private gain. […] The Court sent each of the three cases back to the lower courts--'Black' and 'Skilling', for a determination of whether erroneous jury instructions on honest services fraud had so tainted their convictions as to require a new trial or whether the instructions simply constituted harmless error; 'Weyhrauch', for the reconsideration in light of the Court's 'Skilling' decision."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2011-09-16
-
Privacy: An Overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act [March 30, 2011]
"This report provides an overview of federal law governing wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). It also appends citations to state law in the area and the text of ECPA. It is a federal crime to wiretap or to use a machine to capture the communications of others without court approval, unless one of the parties has given his prior consent. It is likewise a federal crime to use or disclose any information acquired by illegal wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping. Violations can result in imprisonment for not more than five years; fines up to $250,000 (up to $500,000 for organizations); in civil liability for damages, attorneys' fees and possibly punitive damages; in disciplinary action against any attorneys involved; and in suppression of any derivative evidence. Congress has created separate, but comparable, protective schemes for electronic communications (e.g., email) and against the surreptitious use of telephone call monitoring practices such as pen registers and trap and trace devices. Each of these protective schemes comes with a procedural mechanism to afford limited law enforcement access to private communications and communications records under conditions consistent with the dictates of the Fourth Amendment. The government has been given narrowly confined authority to engage in electronic surveillance, conduct physical searches, and install and use pen registers and trap and trace devices for law enforcement purposes under ECPA and for purposes of foreign intelligence gathering under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2011-03-30
-
Stealing Trade Secrets and Economic Espionage: An Overview of 18 U.S.C. 1831 and 1832 [January 28, 2013]
"The Economic Espionage Act (EEA) outlaws two forms of trade secret theft: theft for the benefit of a foreign entity (economic espionage) and theft for pecuniary gain (theft of trade secrets). Under either proscription, its reach extends to theft from electronic storage. Offenders face imprisonment for not more than 10 years in the case of trade secret theft and not more than 15 years in the case of economic espionage. Individuals may incur fines of not more than the greater of $250,000 or twice the loss or gain associated with the offense for trade secret theft and for economic espionage not more than the greater of $5 million or twice the loss or gain. Organizations are fined more severely, up to the greater of $5 million or twice the gain or loss for trade secret theft, and for economic espionage up to a fine of the greater of $10 million, three times the value of the trade secret, or twice the gain or loss associated with the offense. A court may assess the same sanctions for attempt or conspiracy to commit either offense. A sentencing court must order the defendants to pay victim restitution, and the government may confiscate any property that is derived from or used to facilitate either offense. The government may seek to enjoin violations, but the EEA creates no explicit private cause of action. Conduct that violates the EEA's proscriptions may also violate other federal prohibitions, however. Some, like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, in addition to imposing criminal penalties, do authorize victims to sue for damages and other forms of relief under some circumstances."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2013-01-28
-
Sex Trafficking: Proposals in the 114th Congress to Amend Federal Criminal Law [April 29, 2015]
"Existing federal law outlaws sex trafficking and provides a variety of mechanisms to prevent it and to assist its victims. Members have offered a number of proposals during the 114th Congress to bolster those efforts. Several clarify, expand, or supplement existing federal criminal law. For instance, Senator Cornyn's S. 178, which passed the Senate, and Representative Poe's H.R. 181, which passed the House, would confirm that federal commercial sex trafficking prohibitions apply to the customers of such enterprises. The bills would also constrict the defense of those who engage in illicit sexual activities with children. Both bills would afford state and federal law enforcement officials greater access to court-supervised electronic surveillance in sex trafficking cases. Both would also expand victims' statutory rights and remove stringent limits on appellate enforcement of those rights. S. 178, along with Senator Kirk's S. 572 and Representative Wagner's H.R. 285, would bring culpable advertisers within the reach of the federal law which proscribes commercial sex trafficking."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2015-04-29
-
National Security Letters: Proposals in the 112th Congress [February 1, 2011]
"Three USA PATRIOT Act-related amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) expire on February 28, 2011. None of the expiring provisions deal with National Security Letters (NSLs). The USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011 (S. 193), however, would both extend the expiration of those provisions and amend existing NSL authority. S. 193 corresponds in large measure to legislation reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the last Congress (S. 1692 (111th Cong.)). NSLs are roughly comparable to administrative subpoenas. Various intelligence agencies use them to demand certain customer information from communications providers, financial institutions, and consumer credit reporting agencies under the Right to Financial Privacy Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the National Security Act, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. [...] S. 193 would return NSL statutes, as of December 31, 2013, to their pre-USA PATRIOT Act status. It would also codify existing law with respect to judicial review of NSL nondisclosure orders and expand existing audit and reporting requirements. This report reprints the text of the five NSL statutes as they now appear and as they appeared prior to amendment by the USA PATRIOT Act (to which form they would be returned under S. 193)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2011-02-01
-
Abbreviated Sketch of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-457): Criminal Law Provisions
From the Summary: "The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (H.R. 7311), passed both the House and the Senate on December 10, 2008. The President signed it into law on December 23, 2008, P.L. 110-457, 122 Stat. 5044 (2008). [...] The Wilberforce Act bolsters federal efforts to combat both international and domestic traffic in human beings. Among other initiatives, it expands pre-existing law enforcement authority and the criminal proscriptions in the area. For instance, it authorizes the Attorney General to use administrative subpoenas in sex trafficking investigations and to seek preventive detention of those charged with such offenses. It clarifies the reach of earlier prohibitions and outlaws anew obstructing anti-trafficking enforcement efforts, conspiring to traffic, as well as reaping any benefit from trafficking."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2009-02-04
-
Sex Trafficking: Proposals in the 114th Congress to Amend Federal Criminal Law [Updated June 9, 2015]
From the Summary: "Existing federal law outlaws sex trafficking and provides a variety of mechanisms to prevent it and to assist its victims. Members have offered a number of proposals during the 114th Congress to bolster those efforts. Several clarify, expand, or supplement existing federal criminal law."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2015-06-09
-
Sex Trafficking: An Abbreviated Overview of Federal Criminal Law [Updated June 25, 2015]
From the Summary: "Sex trafficking is a state crime. Federal law, however, makes it a federal crime to conduct the activities of a sex trafficking enterprise in a way that affects interstate or foreign commerce or that involves travel in interstate or foreign commerce. Section 1591 of Title 18 of the 'United States Code' outlaws sex trafficking activities that affect interstate or foreign commerce. The Mann Act outlaws sex trafficking activities that involve travel in interstate or foreign commerce. The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 (Victims Justice Act; P.L. 114-22/S. 178) amended both §1591 and the Mann Act."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2015-06-25
-
USA PATRIOT Act: A Legal Analysis [April 15, 2002]
The USA PATRIOT Act passed in the wake of the September 11 terrorist
attacks. The stated purpose of the Act is to enable law enforcement officials to track down and punish those responsible for the attacks and to protect against any similar attacks. The Act grants federal officials greater powers to trace and intercept terrorists' communications both for law enforcement and foreign intelligence purposes. The authority to monitor e-mail traffic, to share grand jury information with intelligence and immigration officers, to confiscate property, and to impose new book-keeping requirements on financial institutions, are among the features troubling to some. In addition, much of the information contained here may also be found under a different arrangement in a report entitled, Terrorism: Section by Section Analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act, CRS REP.NO.
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2002-04-15
-
Terrorism: World Trade Center and the Pentagon - Applicable Federal Criminal Law [September 13, 2001]
"The death and destruction associated with the hijacking of four commercial airliners constitute federal crimes that outlaw air piracy, murder, and kidnapping. Relevant statutes carry the death penalty and apply to any accomplices or coconspirators here or abroad. [...] On September 11, 2001, four commercial airliners were hijacked. Two crashed into the World Trade Center towers; one into the Pentagon; and a fourth in Pennsylvania. Casualties number in the thousands. [...] The existence of multiple murder victims; the risk of death of others; the heinous nature of a murder; and the fact a murder occurred during the commission of air piracy, destruction of federal buildings or those whose activities affect interstate commerce, kidnapping, or destruction of commercial aircraft, are all aggravating factors which a jury may consider in determining whether the death penalty should be imposed on those guilty of federal capital offenses."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2001-09-13
-
Terrorism Legislation: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001 [Updated October 26, 2001]
"On Thursday, October 25, 2001, the Senate approved House-passed H.R.3162, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act which bolsters the ability of federal authorities to conduct criminal and intelligence investigations, to bar and expel foreign terrorists from the United States, to separate terrorists from their sources of financial support, to punish acts of terrorism, and to address the needs of the direct victims of the events of September 11. The Act is a merger of two bills, S.1510, and H.R.2975/H.R.3108 which had earlier passed in their respective Houses. It melds the money laundering aspects of S.1510 with those of the free standing, House-passed money laundering bill, H.R.3004. A variant of the House sunset provision survives, but adjustments to the McDade-Murtha Amendment concerning the adherence of federal prosecutors to local ethical standards do not. Detention authority over immigrants suspected of terrorist connections remains; as do the benefits to immigrants victimized by the events of September 11. The President signed the bill on Friday, October 26."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2001-10-26
-
USA Patriot Act: A Sketch [April 18, 2002]
Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act (the Act) in response to the terrorists'
attacks of September 11, 2001. The Act gives federal officials greater authority to track and intercept communications, both for law enforcement and foreign intelligence gathering purposes. It vests the Secretary of the Treasury with regulatory powers to combat corruption of U.S. financial institutions for foreign money laundering purposes. It seeks to further close our borders to foreign terrorists and to detain and remove those within our borders. It creates new crimes, new penalties, and new procedural efficiencies for use against domestic and international terrorists. Although it is not without safeguards, critics contend some of its provisions go too far. Although it grants many of the enhancements sought by the Department of Justice, others are concerned that it does not go far enough. This is an abbreviated versions [sic] of The USA PATRIOT ACT: a legal analysis, CRS Report RL31377, stripped of its citations and footnotes.
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2002-04-18
-
Terrorism at Home and Abroad: Applicable Federal and State Criminal Laws [Updated September 24, 2001]
"Terrorists' attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the Murrah building in Oklahoma City and the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania have stimulated demands that the terrorists responsible and those like them be brought to justice. American criminal law already proscribes many of these acts of terrorism and there have been proposals to expand that coverage. This is a brief overview of the state and federal laws which now prohibit terrorism in this country and abroad."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2002-09-24
-
Terrorism: Section by Section Analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act [Updated December 10, 2001]
The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act, P. L. 107-56, is part of the Congressional response to September 11. It is the merger of two similar bills. S.1510 passed the Senate on October 11, 147 "Cong.Rec." S10604, and H.R. 2975 passed the House on October 12 after substituting the language of H.R. 3108 for its text, 147 "Cong.Rec." H6775. Having informally resolved their differences, the House enacted the measure in final form on October 24, 147 "Cong.Rec." H7282, and the Senate on October 25, 147 "Cong.Rec." S11059.
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2001-12-10
-
Terrorism Abroad: A Quick Look at Applicable Federal and State Laws [October 3, 2001]
"Terrorists' attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania have stimulated demands that the terrorists responsible and those like them be brought to justice. American criminal law already proscribes many of these acts of terrorism and there have been proposals to expand that coverage. Ordinarily, crime is proscribed by the law of the place where it occurs, but more than a few American criminal laws apply to terrorism committed outside the United States. The power to enact such laws flows from the Constitution and is usually limited by little more than due process notice. Practicality and reluctance to offend other nations have traditionally limited American exercise of such authority to instances where there is a discernible nexus to the United States. Yet where there is a clear connection to the United States, American criminal law, primarily federal law generally permits prosecution of terrorism committed overseas."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2001-10-03
-
National Security Letters in Foreign Intelligence Investigations: A Glimpse of the Legal Background and Recent Amendments [December 27, 2010]
"Five statutory provisions vest government agencies responsible for certain foreign intelligence investigations (principally the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI]) with authority to issue written commands comparable to administrative subpoenas. These National Security Letters (NSLs) seek customer and consumer transaction information in national security investigations from communications providers, financial institutions, and credit agencies. The USA PATRIOT Act expanded the circumstances under which an NSL could be used. Subsequent press accounts suggested that their use had become widespread. Two lower federal courts found the uncertainties, practices, and policies associated with the use of NSL authority contrary to the First Amendment right of freedom of speech. The USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act, P.L. 109-177, and P.L. 109-178, amend the NSL statutes and related law to address some of the concerns raised by critics and the courts. Following amendment, an appellate court dismissed one of the earlier cases as moot and remanded the second for reconsideration in light of the amendments. On remand, the lower federal court again held the NSLs constitutionally suspect. The Court of Appeals, however, ruled that the amended statutes could withstand constitutional scrutiny, if the government confines itself to a procedure which requires (1) notice to the recipient of its option to object to a secrecy requirement; (2) upon recipient objection, prompt judicial review at the government's petition and burden; and (3) meaningful judicial review without conclusive weight afforded a government certification of risk. [...] A report of the Department of Justice's Inspector General [IG] found that in its early use of its expanded USA PATRIOT Act authority the FBI had 'used NSLs in violation of applicable NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, and internal FBI policies,' but that no criminal laws had been broken. A year later, a second IG report confirmed the findings of the first, and noted the corrective measures taken in response. A third IG report, critical of the FBI's use of exigent letters and other informal NL alternatives, noted that the practice had been stopped and related problems addressed."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2010-12-27
-
Habeas Corpus Legislation in the 111th Congress [December 30, 2010]
"Federal habeas corpus is the process under which those in official detention may petition a federal court for their release based on an assertion that they are being held in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. Major habeas legislative activity in the 111th Congress fell within three areas: proposals to permit state death row inmates to seek habeas relief based on evidence that they are probably innocent (H.R. 3320 and H.R. 3986); proposals to amend federal law in response to the Supreme Court's determination that the level of judicial review afforded Guantanamo detainees failed to meet constitutional expectations (H.R. 64, H.R. 591, H.R. 630, H.R. 1315, H.R. 3728, and S. 3707); and recommendations for revision of several areas of federal habeas law from witnesses appearing before recent House Judiciary Committee hearings. The 111th Congress adjourned without further action on any of these proposals or recommendations."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2010-12-30
-
National Security Letters: Proposed Amendments in the 111th Congress [December 27, 2010]
"Five federal statutes authorize various intelligence agencies to demand, through National Security Letters (NSLs), certain customer information from communications providers, financial institutions, and consumer credit reporting agencies, under the Right to Financial Privacy Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the National Security Act, and Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The USA PATRIOT Act expanded NSL authority. Later reports of the Department of Justice Inspector General indicated that (1) the FBI considered the expanded authority very useful; (2) after expansion the number of NSLs requests increased dramatically; (3) the number of requests relating to Americans increased substantially; and (4) FBI use of NSL authority had sometimes failed to comply with statutory, Attorney General, or FBI policies. Originally, the NSL statutes authorized nondisclosure requirements prohibiting recipients from disclosing receipt or the content of the NSL to anyone, ever. They now permit judicial review of these secrecy provisions. As understood by the courts, recipients may request the issuing agency to seek and justify to the court the continued binding effect of any secrecy requirement."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2010-12-27
-
Crimes of Violence Committed Against Federal Officials or Employees: A Brief Overview of Federal Criminal Law [January 11, 2011]
"Dozens of federal statutes outlaw homicide, assault, and threats under varying jurisdictional circumstances. Those which appear most relevant to tragic events in Tucson, AZ, are identified in abbreviated form here."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2011-01-11
-
Victim Restitution: Attorneys' Fees for Internal Investigations? [February 6, 2018]
"Does a statute that requires victim reimbursement for 'other expenses incurred during participation in the investigation or prosecution of the [victimizing] offense' cover 'costs that were neither required nor requested by the government, including costs incurred for the victim's own purposes and unprompted by any official action?' That is the question that has bedeviled the lower federal courts and that the Supreme Court has agreed to consider in a case styled Lagos v. United States."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2018-02-06
-
Murderous Schemes Are Not Violent Crimes? [April 17, 2018]
"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit) recently held in U.S. v. McCollum that conspiracy to murder is not a violent crime for federal sentencing purposes. The comments of a concurring judge seem to capture the frustration of the panel with the result: 'The dissent ends with the … lament, 'Heaven help us.' Frankly, I would be satisfied if Congress or the Supreme Court would help us. The law in this area, which Judge Duncan faithfully follows, leads to some seemingly odd results with which I do not think any of us are particularly happy.'"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2018-04-17
-
Russians Indicted for Online Election Trolling [February 21, 2018]
"The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the grand jury indictment of three Russian companies and thirteen Russian nationals on February 16, 2018. The indictment alleges that the defendants took part in a multi-layered, multi-million dollar scheme to surreptitiously participate in the most recent presidential election. The defendants are charged with aggravated identity theft, conspiracy to commit mail and bank fraud and with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government. The indictment asserts that the purpose of the enterprise was to obstruct 'the lawful governmental functions of the United States by dishonest means in order to enable the Defendants to interfere with U.S. political and electoral processes, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election.'"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2018-02-21
-
Venue: An Abridged Legal Analysis of Where a Federal Crime May Be Tried [December 6, 2018]
"The United States Constitution assures those charged with a serious federal crime that they will be prosecuted in the state and district in which the crime occurred. A crime occurs in any district in which any of its 'conduct' elements are committed. Some offenses are committed entirely within a single district; there they may be tried. Other crimes have elements that have occurred in more than one district. Still other crimes have been committed overseas and so have occurred outside any district. Statutory provisions, court rules, and judicial interpretations implement the Constitution's requirements and dictate where multi-district crimes or overseas crimes may be tried. Most litigation involves either a question of whether the government's selection of venue in a multi-district case is proper or whether the court should grant the accused's request for a change of venue. The government bears the burden of establishing venue by a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant may waive trial in a proper venue either explicitly or by failing to object to prosecution in an improper venue in a timely manner."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2018-12-06
-
Extradition of U.S. Citizens [June 13, 2019]
From the Introduction: "The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) recently refused to bar the extradition to the Czech Republic of a U.S. citizen, Ivo Knotek, who challenged his extradition on constitutional grounds. The federal international extradition process has several unusual aspects, but the Ninth Circuit case is somewhat unique even among extradition cases. In addition to other uncommon features, it explores the circumstances under which the United States will extradite one of its own citizens."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2019-06-13
-
Gun Crime Penalty Tossed [June 20, 2019]
From the Summary: "The full United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Sixth Circuit) (sitting en banc), in 'United States v. Havis,' recently held that prior attempt convictions do not warrant a felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm sentencing enhancement. Ordinarily binding commentary included in the U.S. Sentencing Commission's sentencing guidelines would require enhancement for prior attempt convictions. A number of other federal appellate courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in 2017, have deferred to the Sentencing Commission's interpretation. The Sixth Circuit, however, concluded that the commentary is not entitled to deference because it conflicts with the text of the guideline."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
-
National Security Letters: Proposals in the 113th Congress [January 22, 2015]
"A National Security Letter (NSL) is roughly comparable to an administrative subpoena. Various intelligence agencies use NSLs to demand certain customer information from communications providers, financial institutions, and consumer credit reporting agencies under the Right to Financial Privacy Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the National Security Act, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Congress weighed several NSL amendments during the 113th Congress. The House passed one, H.R. 3361. The Senate failed to provide the three-fifths vote necessary for cloture on another, S. 2685. Yet in the end, the 113th Congress adjourned without enacting any of the proposed NSL amendments. […] As an additional oversight tool, S. 1215 and S. 1599 would have returned all but two of the NSL statutes to their pre-USA PATRIOT Act [Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001] form, effective June 1, 2015. The exceptions would have been the National Security Act NSL statute, which evokes few privacy concerns, and the sweeping, USA PATRIOT Act-born, Fair Credit Reporting Act NSL statute, which the bills would have repealed. This report reprints the text of the five NSL statutes as they now appear and as they appeared prior to amendment by the USA PATRIOT Act (to which form they would have been returned under S. 1125 and H.R. 1805). Related reports include CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report R40138, Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Extended Until June 1, 2015, by Edward C. Liu, and CRS Report RL33320, National Security Letters in Foreign Intelligence Investigations: Legal Background, by Charles Doyle."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2015-01-22
-
Crime and Forfeiture [January 22, 2015]
"Forfeiture has long been an effective law enforcement tool. Congress and state legislatures have authorized its use for over 200 years. Every year, it redirects property worth billions of dollars from criminal to lawful uses. Forfeiture law has always been somewhat unique. By the close of the 20th century, however, legislative bodies, commentators, and the courts had begun to examine its eccentricities in greater detail because under some circumstances it could be not only harsh but unfair. The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), P.L. 106-185, 114 Stat. 202 (2000), was a product of that reexamination. Modern forfeiture follows one of two procedural routes. Although crime triggers all forfeitures, they are classified as civil forfeitures or criminal forfeitures according to the nature of the procedure which ends in confiscation. Civil forfeiture is an in rem proceeding. The property is the defendant in the case. Unless the statute provides otherwise, the innocence of the owner is irrelevant--it is enough that the property was involved in a violation to which forfeiture attaches. […] Intra- and intergovernmental transfers and the use of special funds are hallmarks of federal forfeiture. Every year, federal agencies share among themselves the proceeds of jointly conducted forfeitures. They also transfer hundreds of millions of dollars and property to state, local, and foreign law enforcement officials as compensation for their contribution to joint enforcement efforts. This report is available in an abridged form, without citations, footnotes, or appendices, as CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report RS22005, Crime and Forfeiture: In Short, by Charles Doyle. For a discussion of selected proposed reforms, see CRS Report R43890, Asset Forfeiture: Selected Legal Issues and Reforms, by Richard M. Thompson II."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2015-01-22
-
Crime and Forfeiture: In Short [January 22, 2015]
From the summary: "Forfeiture has long been an effective law enforcement tool. Congress and state legislatures have authorized its use for over 200 years. […] Modern forfeiture follows one of two procedural routes. Although crime triggers all forfeitures, they are classified as civil forfeitures or criminal forfeitures according to the nature of the procedure that ends in confiscation. Civil forfeiture is an in rem proceeding. The property is the defendant in the case. Unless the statute provides otherwise, the innocence of the owner is irrelevant--it is enough that the property was involved in a violation to which forfeiture attaches. As a matter of expedience and judicial economy, Congress often allows administrative forfeiture in uncontested civil confiscation cases. Criminal forfeiture is an in personam proceeding, and confiscation is only possible upon the conviction of the owner of the property. […] The statutes governing the disposal of forfeited property may authorize its destruction, its transfer for governmental purposes, or deposit of the property or of the proceeds from its sale in a special fund. Intergovernmental transfers and the use of special funds are hallmarks of federal forfeiture. Every year federal agencies transfer hundreds of millions of dollars and property to state, local, and foreign law enforcement officials as compensation for their contribution to joint enforcement efforts."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2015-01-22
-
Crime Victims' Rights Act: A Summary and Legal Analysis of 18 U.S.C. §3771 [December 9, 2015]
"Section 3771 of Title 18 of the 'United States Code' is a statutory bill of rights for victims of crimes committed in violation of federal law or the laws of the District of Columbia. It defines victims as anyone directly and proximately harmed by such an offense, individuals and legal entities alike. It does not appear to include family relatives of a deceased, child, or incapacitated victim except in a representative capacity. Numbered among the rights it conveys are (1) the right to be reasonably protected from the accused; (2) the right to notification of public court and parole proceedings and of any release of the accused; (3) the right not to be excluded from public court proceedings under most circumstances; (4) the right to be heard in public court proceedings relating to bail, the acceptance of a plea bargain, sentencing, or parole; (5) the right to confer with the prosecutor; (6) the right to restitution under the law; (7) the right to proceedings free from unwarranted delays; (8) the right to be treated fairly and with respect to one's dignity and privacy; (9) the right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement; and (10) the right to be informed of the statutory rights and services to which one is entitled. The section directs the courts and law enforcement officials to see to it that the rights it creates are honored. Both victims and prosecutors may assert the rights and seek review from the appellate courts should the rights be initially denied. The section vests no rights in the accused nor does it create cause of action damages in any instance where a victim is afforded less than the section's full benefits."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2015-12-09
