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).
-
National Security Letters in Foreign Intelligence Investigations: Legal Background [November 22, 2013]
"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. A National Security Letter (NSL) seeks customer and consumer transaction information in national security investigations from communications providers, financial institutions and credit agencies. Section 505 of 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, however, found the uncertainties, practices, and policies associated with the use of NSL authority contrary to the First Amendment right of freedom of speech, and thus brought into question the extent to which NSL authority could be used in the future. The USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act and P.L. 109-178 (S. 2271) amended the NSL statutes and related law to address some of the concerns raised by critics and the courts. As a consequence, the Second Circuit dismissed one of the lower court cases as moot and remanded the other for reconsideration in light of the amendments. On reconsideration, the district court opinion continued to be troubled by the First Amendment implications of the nondisclosure features of 18 U.S.C. 2709, even as amended. The appellate court was comparably concerned, but concluded that the government might invoke the authority of 18 U.S.C. 2709 and 18 U.S.C. 3511 in a limited but constitutionally acceptable manner. On remand under the procedure envisioned by the Second Circuit panel, the district court found a continuing need to maintain the original secrecy order, but ordered the government to provide the plaintiffs with an unclassified, redacted summary of the declaration upon which the court's decision was based. The result was somewhat different in the Ninth Circuit. There, too, a district court found that Section 2709(c)'s nondisclosure requirements violated the First Amendment and that Section 3511(b)(2)'s and (3)'s judicial review provisions violated the First Amendment and separation of powers principles. It could not agree to the narrow construction favored by the Second Circuit, however, given the clear statutory language and equally clear congressional intent to afford the government broad, review-proof authority to issue NSL secrecy orders. Nevertheless, pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the district court stayed its order barring issuance of further NSLs and enforcement of any related nondisclosure requirements."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2013-11-22
-
National Security Letters: Proposal in the 113th Congress [November 22, 2013]
"National Security Letters (NSLs) are roughly comparable to administrative subpoenas. They need no prior judicial approval. Intelligence agencies issue them for intelligence gathering purposes to telephone companies, Internet service providers, consumer credit reporting agencies, banks, and other financial institutions, directing the recipients to turn over certain customer records and similar information. The 111th and 112th Congresses saw a number of proposals to amend NSL authority. None were enacted. In the 112th Congress, they were closely associated with the scheduled expiration of various provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In the 113th Congress, they have often been grouped with legislation that addresses the exercise of FISA authority."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2013-11-22
-
Receipt of $4.7 Billion is Not Always a Benefit [February 12, 2019]
"According to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (First Circuit) in 'United States v. Bravo-Fernández', evidence that Puerto Rico received $4.7 billion in federal 'assistance' is not enough to prove that the Commonwealth received at least $10,000 in federal 'program benefits' under the federal program bribery statute. At the time of the First Circuit's most recent opinion, the case was making a third trip up the appellate ladder. The case began when Juan Bravo-Fernández (Bravo), a businessman, provided Hector Martinez-Maldonado (Martinez), a member of the Puerto Rican Senate, with a trip to Las Vegas complete with first-class hotel accommodations, expensive meals, and highly priced tickets to a boxing match. A trial jury convicted the pair of violating the federal program bribery statute."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2019-02-12
-
Sex Trafficking: An Overview of Federal Criminal Law [June 25, 2015]
"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. Section 1591 now provides in part the following: 'Whoever knowingly in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, maintains, patronizes, or solicits by any means a person; knowing, or in reckless disregard of the fact, that means of force, threats of force, fraud, coercion ... , or any combination of such means will be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act, or that the person has not attained the age of 18 years and will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act,' shall be imprisoned not less than 15 years (not less than 10 years, if the victim is 14 years of age or older and the offender is less than 18 years of age)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2015-06-25
-
National Security Letters in Foreign Intelligence Investigations: A Glimpse at the Legal Background [July 31, 2015]
"Five federal statutes authorize intelligence officials to request certain business record information in connection with national security investigations. The authority to issue these national security letters (NSLs) is comparable to the authority to issue administrative subpoenas. The USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56) expanded the authority under the original four NSL statutes and created a fifth. Thereafter, the authority was reported to have been widely used. Then, a report by the Department of Justice's Inspector General (IG) found that in its use of expanded USA PATRIOT Act authority the FBI had 'used NSLs in violation of applicable NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, and internal FBI policies,' although it concluded 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 informal NSL alternatives, noted that the practice had been stopped and related problems addressed."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2015-07-31
-
Obstruction of Justice: An Abridged Overview of Related Federal Criminal Laws [April 17, 2014]
"Obstruction of justice is the frustration of governmental purposes by violence, corruption, destruction of evidence, or deceit. It is a federal crime. In fact, it is several crimes. Obstruction prosecutions regularly involve charges under several statutory provisions. Federal obstruction of justice laws are legion; too many for even passing reference to all of them in a single report. The general obstruction of justice provisions are six: 18 U.S.C. 1512 (tampering with federal witnesses), 1513 (retaliating against federal witnesses), 1503 (obstruction of pending federal court proceedings), 1505 (obstruction of pending congressional or federal administrative proceedings), 371 (conspiracy), and contempt. In addition to these, there are a host of other statutes that penalize obstruction by violence, corruption, destruction of evidence, or deceit. Moreover, regardless of the offense for which an individual is convicted, his sentence may be enhanced as a consequence of any obstruction of justice for which he is responsible, if committed during the course of the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing for the offense of his conviction. The enhancement may result in an increase in his term of imprisonment by as much as four years. This is an abridged version of CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report RL34303, 'Obstruction of Justice: An Overview of Some of the Federal Statutes That Prohibit Interference with Judicial, Executive, or Legislative Activities,' without the footnotes, quotations, or citations to authority found in the longer report."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2014-04-17
-
Obstruction of Justice: An Overview of Some of the Federal Statutes that Prohibit Interference with Judicial, Executive, or Legislative Activities [April 17, 2014]
"Obstruction of justice is the impediment of governmental activities. There are a host of federal criminal laws that prohibit obstructions of justice. The six most general outlaw obstruction of judicial proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1503), witness tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512), witness retaliation (18 U.S.C. 1513), obstruction of congressional or administrative proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505), conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt (a creature of statute, rule and common law). The laws that supplement, and sometimes mirror, the basic six tend to proscribe a particular means of obstruction. Some, like the perjury and false statement statutes, condemn obstruction by lies and deception. Others, like the bribery, mail fraud, and wire fraud statutes, prohibit obstruction by corruption of public employees or officials. Some outlaw the use of violence as a means of obstruction. Still others ban the destruction of evidence. [...] Moreover, regardless of the offense for which an individual is convicted, his sentence may be enhanced as a consequence of any obstruction of justice for which he is responsible, if committed during the course of the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing for the offense of his conviction. The enhancement may result in an increase in his term of imprisonment by as much as four years. This report is available in abbreviated form--without footnotes, quotations, or citations--as CRS Report RS22783, 'Obstruction of Justice: An Abridged Overview of Related Federal Criminal Laws' by Charles Doyle."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2014-04-17
-
Sentence Reform Acts: S.2123 and H.R. 3713 [October 14, 2015]
"As introduced, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, S. 2123, and the Sentencing Reform Act of 2015, H.R. 3713, use virtually identical language to reduce the impact of the mandatory minimum sentences which federal courts must now impose for certain drug trafficking and firearms offenses. [The following are the] [k]ey [t]akeaways: [1] Existing law requires long minimum sentences for certain drug traffickers who have prior drug convictions. S. 2123 and H.R. 3713 would shorten the mandatory minimums, but apply them for both prior drug and violent felony convictions. [2] The safety valve permits judges to ignore mandatory minimums for certain lowlevel, nonviolent drug traffickers with virtually no criminal record. The bills would make the safety valve available to traffickers with slightly more serious criminal records. [3] The bills would establish a mini-safety valve which would permit judges to treat the 10-year drug trafficking mandatory minimums as if they were 5-year mandatory minimums for the benefit of nonviolent defendants with no prior serious drug or violent crime convictions. [4] The proposals would permit retroactive application of the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act crack/powder cocaine amendments under some circumstances. [5] S. 2123 and H.R. 3713 would reduce the Armed Career Criminal mandatory minimum to 10 years from 15 years. [6] The bills would increase to 15 years the maximum penalties for possession of a firearm by a felon and various other firearms offenses. [7] H.R. 3713, but not S. 2123, would add a consecutive term of imprisonment for not more than five years to the mandatory minimums in drug trafficking cases which involve heroin or fentanyl (a heroin cutter and counterfeit). [8] S. 2123, but not H.R. 3713, would establish new mandatory minimums for certain interstate domestic violence offenses and International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) violations. [9] S. 2123, but not H.R. 3713, would direct the Attorney General to prepare an inventory of federal statutory crimes and various federal agencies to prepare a comparable inventory of federal regulatory offenses."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2015-10-14
-
Sentencing Reform: Comparison of Selected Proposals [October 26, 2015]
"This is a comparison of selected criminal sentencing reform bills as introduced: H.R. 3713, H.R. 2944, S. 502, and H.R. 920; and S. 2123 as passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee with a manager's amendment. It consists of narrative and charts comparing the bills with respect to adjustments in the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions that apply to controlled substance and firearms offenses, the safety valve, and retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cole, Jared P.; Doyle, Charles
2015-10-26
-
No True Bill: A Grand Jury's Refusal to Indict [November 26, 2014]
This report provides a brief overview of the legal aspects of grand jury indictments in federal felony cases. As stated in the report: "Grand jury indictment is a constitutional right in federal felony cases. It is an alternative means of prosecution in many states. In either system, the grand jury is the people's panel. It stands as a group of randomly-selected members of the community, strategically placed "as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people." It serves the "twin historical responsibilities [of] bringing to trial those who may be justly accused and shielding the innocent from unfounded accusation and prosecution." If the grand jury agrees that the evidence before it warrants indictment, it may indict and the accused may be brought to trial. If the grand jury does not agree and refuses to indict, an accused may not be brought to trial under indictment. Yet, the prosecutor's role before the grand jury can have a significant impact."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2014-11-26
-
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: Federal Aggravated Identity Theft [August 20, 2015]
"Aggravated identity theft is punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment for two years or by imprisonment for five years if it relates to a terrorism offense. At least thus far, the government has rarely prosecuted the five-year terrorism form of the offense. The two-year offense occurs when an individual knowingly possesses, uses, or transfers the means of identification of another person, without lawful authority to do so, during and in relation to one of more than 60 predicate federal felony offenses […]. Section 1028A has the effect of establishing a mandatory minimum sentence for those predicate felony offenses, when they involve identity theft. A sentencing court has the discretion not to 'stack' or pancake multiple aggravated identity theft counts and, as with other mandatory minimums, may impose a sentence of less than the mandatory minimum at the request of the prosecution based on the defendant's substantial assistance. More than half of the judges responding to a United States Sentence Commission survey felt the two-year mandatory minimum penalty was generally appropriate. The Commission's report on mandatory minimum sentencing statutes is mildly complimentary of the provision."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2015-08-20
-
Court Security Improvement Act of 2007: A Legal Analysis of Public Law 110-177 (H.R. 660 and S. 378) [January 14, 2008]
"The proposals of the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-177, H.R. 660 and S. 378), fall within one of four categories. One consists of amendments to existing federal criminal law. The bill increases the penalties for manslaughter committed during the course of an obstruction of justice and for witness intimidation and retaliation. It creates new federal crimes proscribing (1) the use of nuisance liens and encumbrances to harass federal officials; (2) the public disclosure of personal, identifying information concerning federal officials in order to intimidate them or incite crimes of violence against them; and (3) the possession of dangerous weapons in federal courthouses. […] A third authorizes grants for state witness protection programs; for increased security of state, territorial and tribal courts; and for acquisition of armored vests for state court officials. The fourth category consists of proposals whose relation to security may appear more tangential: procurement authority for the United States Sentencing Commission; life insurance costs for bankruptcy, magistrate, and territorial judges; the appointment and en banc participation for senior judges; and judgeships in the Ninth Circuit and District of Columbia Courts of Appeal. This report is available in an abridged version -- stripped of its footnotes, and most of its citations to authority -- as CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report RS22607, 'Court Security Improvement Act of 2007: Public Law 110-177 (H.R. 660 and S. 378) in Brief', by Charles Doyle."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2008-01-14
-
Statutes of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview [October 1, 2012]
"The Constitution's speedy trial clause protects the criminally accused against unreasonable delays between his indictment and trial. Before indictment, the statutes of limitation, and in extreme circumstances, the due process clauses protect the accused from unreasonable delays. The anti-terrorism measures of the USA PATRIOT Act made substantial alterations in the statutes of limitation that govern a number of federal crimes. This is an overview of federal law relating to the statutes of limitation in criminal cases, including those changes produced by the act. The phrase 'statute of limitations' refers to the time period within which formal criminal charges must be brought after a crime has been committed. 'The purpose of a statute of limitations is to limit exposure to criminal prosecution to a certain fixed period of time following the occurrence of those acts the legislature has decided to punish by criminal sanctions. Such a limitation is designed to protect individuals from having to defend themselves against charges when the basic facts may have become obscured by the passage of time and to minimize the danger of official punishment because of acts in the far-distant past. Such a time limit may also have the salutary effect of encouraging law enforcement officials promptly to investigate suspected criminal activity.' Therefore, in most instances, prosecutions are barred if the defendant points out that there was no indictment or other formal charge within the time period dictated by the statute of limitations. Statutes of limitation are creatures of statute. The common law recognized no period of limitation. An indictment could be brought at any time. Limitations are recognized today only to the extent that a statute or due process dictates their recognition. Congress and most state legislatures have enacted statutes of limitation, but declare that prosecution for some crimes may be brought at any time."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2012-10-01
-
National Security Letters in Foreign Intelligence Investigations: A Glimpse of the Legal Background and Recent Amendments [March 28, 2008]
"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 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 decision is on appeal. A report of the Department of Justice's Inspector General 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. This is an abridged version of CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report RL33320, 'National Security Letters in Foreign Intelligence Investigations: Legal Background and Recent Amendments', without the footnotes, appendices, and most of the citations to authority found in the longer report."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2008-03-28
-
Crime and Forfeiture [May 13, 2013]
"Forfeiture has long been an effective law enforcement tool. Congress and state legislatures have authorized its use for over two hundred years. Every year, it redirects property worth billions of dollars from criminal to lawful uses. Forfeiture law has always been somewhat unique. Legislative bodies, commentators and the courts, however, 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. [Public Law] 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. 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."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2013-05-13
-
Terrorist Material Support: An Overview of 18 U.S.C. 2339A and 2339B [July 19, 2010]
This report discusses laws against providing support for terrorist organizations. From the text: "The sections use a common definition for the term 'material support or resources:' any service or tangible or intangible property. The Supreme Court recently held that the forms of material support in the challenge before it were not unconstitutionally vague nor was their proscription inconsistent with the First Amendment's freedom of speech and freedom of association requirements. Violations of either section are punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years. Although neither section creates a civil cause of action for victims, treble damages and attorneys fees may be available for some victims under 18 U.S.C. 2333. Section 2339B has two extraterritorial jurisdiction provisions. One is general (there is extraterritorial jurisdiction over an offense under this section) and the other descriptive (there is extraterritorial jurisdiction over an offender under this section if the offender is a U.S. national, etc.). Section 2339A has no such provisions, but is likely applicable at a minimum when an offender or victim is a U.S. national; the offense has an impact in the United States; the offense is committed against U.S. national interests; or the offense is universally condemned. This report is available in an abridged version as CRS Report R41334, Terrorist Material Support: A Sketch of 18 U.S.C. 2339A and 2339B."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2010-07-19
-
Terrorist Material Support: A Sketch of 18 U.S.C. 2339A and 2339B [July 19, 2010]
This report discusses laws against providing support for terrorist organizations. From the text: "The sections use a common definition for the term 'material support or resources:' any service or tangible or intangible property. The Supreme Court recently held that the forms of material support in the challenge before it were not unconstitutionally vague nor was their proscription inconsistent with the First Amendment's freedom of speech and freedom of association requirements. Violations of either section are punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years. Although neither section creates a civil cause of action for victims, treble damages and attorneys fees may be available for some victims under 18 U.S.C. 2333. Section 2339B has two extraterritorial jurisdiction provisions. One is general (there is extraterritorial jurisdiction over an offense under this section) and the other descriptive (there is extraterritorial jurisdiction over an offender under this section if the offender is a U.S. national, etc.). Section 2339A has no such provisions, but is likely applicable at a minimum when an offender or victim is a U.S. national; the offense has an impact in the United States; the offense is committed against U.S. national interests; or the offense is universally condemned. This an abridged version of CRS Report R41333, Terrorist Material Support: An Overview of 18 U.S.C. 2339A and 2339B, without the footnotes, citations to authority, and appendices found in the longer report."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2010-07-19
-
Terrorism, Miranda, and Related Matters [May 24, 2010]
"The Supreme Court has yet to decide to what extent Miranda applies to custodial interrogations conducted overseas. [...] Miranda applies to courts-martial that are subject to a requirement for an additional warning under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The statutory provisions governing military commissions call for the admission of some unwarned, involuntary custodial statements. At least one tribunal operating under those provisions has concluded that the Fifth Amendment protections do not apply in the commission trial at Guantanamo Bay of an unprivileged foreign belligerent. Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that federal arrestees be brought before a committing magistrate without unnecessary delay. In the McNabb v. United States and Mallory v. United States cases, the Court declared inadmissible confessions extracted during a period of unnecessary delay. The cases were decided under the Court's supervisory authority over the lower federal courts, and in Corley v. United States, the Court held that McNabb-Mallory had been statutorily supplemented with a provision that made admissible voluntary confession given within six hours of presentment. Neither Miranda nor McNabb-Mallory violations preclude the subsequent prosecution of the accused; they simply preclude the uninvited use of any unwarned, unwaived statements in such prosecutions. Related legislative proposals have been introduced in the 111th Congress. P.L. 111-84 (H.R. 2647) prohibits members of the military from providing Miranda warnings to foreign nationals captured, or held in Defense Department custody, outside the United States as enemy belligerents. Among the legislative proposals yet to secure enactment, one would prohibit the use of funds to provide such warnings (H.R. 2701); others would restrict their use in the interrogation of high-value detainees overseas (S. 3081 and H.R. 4892); and still others would call upon the Administration to provide Congress with information related to the use of Miranda warnings in such circumstances (H.R. 3170, H.Res. 537, H.Res. 570, H.Res. 602)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2010-05-24
-
Privacy: An Abbreviated Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping [Updated May 5, 2006]
"It is a federal crime to intentionally wiretap or electronically eavesdrop on the conversation of another without a court order or the consent of one of the parties to the conversation. Moreover, in eleven states, it is a state crime for anyone other than the police to intentionally wiretap and/or electronically eavesdrop on the conversation of another without the consent of all of the parties to the conversation. The federal crimes are punishable by imprisonment for up to five years and expose offenders to civil liability for damages, attorneys' fees, and possibly punitive damages. State crimes carry similar consequences. Even in states where one party consent interceptions are legal, they may well be contrary to the professional obligations of members of the bar. The proscriptions often include a ban on using or disclosing the fruits of an illegal interception. Statutory exceptions to these general prohibitions permit judicially supervised wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping conducted for law enforcement or foreign intelligence gathering purposes. Similar regimes - proscriptions with exceptions for government access under limited circumstances - exist for telephone records, e-mail and other forms of electronic communications."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles; Stevens, Gina Marie
2006-05-05
-
Federal Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction: Legislation in the 109th Congress [Updated September 21, 2006]
"Crime is usually territorial. It is ordinarily a matter of the law of the place where it occurs. Nevertheless, a surprising number of American criminal laws apply outside of the United States. Application is generally a question of legislative intent, expressed or implied. Two statutes enacted in the 109th Congress have sections that enjoy extraterritorial application. The USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act, P.L. 109-177, includes a handful of crimes that feature explicit extraterritorial jurisdiction. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, P.L. 109-164, carries the Mann Act (18 U.S.C. ch. 117) and the peonage laws (18 U.S.C. ch. 77) overseas under certain circumstances. Comparable pending legislation includes: Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act (H.R. 4437)(House passed); Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (S. 2611)(Senate passed); !Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act (H.R. 4709)(House passed); H.R. 5212 (relating to sexual offenses under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act); S. 1226 (relating to human trafficking by federal contractors); S. 2356 (relating to war profiteering); S. 2402 (relating to money laundering); S. 2361 (relating to war profiteering); S. 2368 (relating to alien smuggling); S. 2454 (relating to alien smuggling). In some instances the explicit statements of extraterritorial jurisdiction replicate the coverage the courts would have otherwise recognized. In some instances they expand extraterritorial jurisdiction beyond that which the courts would have recognize in the absence of a statement; in still others they appear to curtail it by mentioning some of the traditional grounds implicitly recognized and failing to mention others."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2006-09-21
-
Material Support of Terrorists and Foreign Terrorist Organizations: Sunset Amendments [Updated March 17, 2006]
"Section 6603 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA) temporarily amended two federal terrorist assistance prohibitions. Those amendments were to expire on December 31, 2006, P.L. 108-458, 118 Stat. 3762-764 (2004). P.L. 109-160 extended their expiration date until February 3, 2006, 119 Stat. 2957 (2005); P.L. 109-170 extended it yet again until March 10, 2006, 120 Stat. 3 (2006). Section 104 of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act (H.R. 3199), made the amendments permanent, P.L. 109-177, 120 Stat. 195 (2006). In response to court decisions that found certain of their central terms unconstitutionally vague, section 6603 amended the federal statutes that outlaw assistance to terrorists and foreign terrorist organizations, 18 U.S.C. 2339A, 2339B. Initial judicial reaction suggests they may still be considered vague. Section 6603 temporarily rejected a narrow construction of the knowledge requirements under section 2339B, an interpretation which might have dissipated any vagueness problems."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2006-03-17
-
USA PATRIOT Act: Background and Comparison of House- and Senate-Approved Reauthorization and Related Legislative Action [Updated September 15, 2005]
"The House and Senate have each passed USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Acts, H.R. 3199 and S. 1389. Both make permanent most of the expiring USA PATRIOT Act sections, occasionally in modified form. After amending two of the more controversial expiring sections, 206 (roving Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) wiretaps) and 215 (FISA tangible item access orders (business records-library records)), they postpone their expiration date, S. 1389 until December 31, 2009; H.R. 3199 until December 31, 2015. Both address questions raised as to the constitutionality of various 'national security letter' (NSL) statutes by providing for review, enforcement and exceptions to the attendant confidentiality requirements in more explicit terms. S. 1389 limits its NSL adjustments to the statute that affords federal foreign intelligence investigators access to communications records; H.R. 3199 amends the communications, and the financial institution and credit bureau NSL statutes. H.R. 3199 contains a substantial number of sections that have no counterpart in S. 1389, although many of them have been passed or reported by committee in one House or the other. Its treatment of seaport security, for example, is similar in many respects to that of S. 378, the Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act of 2005, as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Its first responder grant program sections are virtually identical to legislation which the House sent to the Senate as H.R. 1544. And its death penalty sections are reminiscent of sections found in H.R. 10 in the 108th Congress as reported the House Judiciary Committee."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2005-09-15
-
Material Support of Terrorists and Foreign Terrorist Organizations: Sunset Amendments [Updated September 15, 2005]
"Section 6603 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA) temporarily amended two federal terrorist assistance prohibitions. Those amendments expire on December 31, 2006, P.L. 108-458, 118 Stat. 3762-764 (2004). Under the provisions of the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act, H.R. 3199, as passed by the House, and S. 1389, as passed by the Senate, the amendments would become permanent. In response to court decisions that found certain of their central terms unconstitutionally vague, section 6603 amended the federal statutes that outlaw assistance to terrorists and foreign terrorist organizations, 18 U.S.C. 2339A, 2339B. Initial judicial reaction suggests they may still be considered vague. Section 6603 temporarily rejected a narrow construction of the knowledge requirements under section 2339B, an interpretation which might have dissipated any vagueness problems. Section 6603 expanded the overseas application of section 2339B as well. It permits federal prosecution of an act proscribed in section 2339B and committed entirely abroad by a foreign national if the offender can be brought to this country for trial. Section 2339A outlaws providing material support or resources with the intent that they be used for the commission of certain predicate terrorism offenses. Section 6603 enlarged the list of predicate offenses to include any federal crime of terrorism (18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5)(B)) and added two crimes to the list, 18 U.S.C. 1361 (destruction of federal property) and 18 U.S.C. 2156 (production of defective national defense material)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2005-09-15
-
USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization in Brief [Updated September 15, 2005]
"Both Houses have approved proposals to reauthorize USA PATRIOT Act sections scheduled to expire at the end of the year. The House passed H.R. 3199 on July 21, 2005, 151 Cong. Rec. H6307; the Senate, S. 1389 on July 29, 2005 (although the Senate substituted its language for that of H.R. 3199 and then passed H.R. 3199; for convenience the Senate version of H.R. 3199 is referred to as S. 1389 here). This is a sketch of those bills and how they differ. Their common provisions deal mostly with expanded federal authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). The bills make permanent all but two of the temporary USA PATRIOT Act sections. They postpone the expiration of the two, dealing with FISA roving wiretaps and the so-call library or business records authority. In these two, the national security letter statutes, and some of the other USA PATRIOT Act provisions make sometimes parallel and sometimes individualistic adjustments. H.R. 3199 contains a number of features not found in S. 1389 including a first responder grant program, new capital offenses and adjusted capital punishment procedures, sections that in large measure replicate the seaport crimes portions of S. 378 (as reported), a substantial expansion in federal forfeiture authority in terrorism and money laundering cases, and expansion of federal wiretapping authority to embrace investigations into twenty crimes for which the authority did not previously exist."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2005-09-15
-
USA PATRIOT Act Sunset: Provisions That Expire on December 31, 2005 [Updated June 29, 2005]
"Several sections of Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act (the act) and one section of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act each relating to enhanced foreign intelligence and law enforcement surveillance authority expire on December 31, 2005. The authority remains in effect only with respect to foreign intelligence investigations begun before sunset or to offenses or potential offense begun or occurring before that date. Aside from the fact there may be some disagreement of whether a potential offense is a suspected crime, and/or an incomplete crime, and/or a future crime, after December 31, 2005 the law reverts to its previous form unless it has been amended or extended in the interim. The 9/11 Commission mentioned the approaching sunset and thought as a general matter that a full and informed debate on the PATRIOT Act would be healthy. The consequences of sunset are not the same for every expiring section. In some instances the temporary provision has been replaced with a permanent one; in some, other provisions have been made temporary by attachment to an expiring section; in still others, the apparent impact of termination has been mitigated by related provisions either in the act or elsewhere."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2005-06-29
-
USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (H.R. 3199): A Side-by-Side Comparison of Existing Law, H.R. 3199 (Conference), and H.R. 3199 (Senate Passed) [December 28, 2005]
"By virtue of Section 224 of the USA PATRIOT Act, P.L. 107-56 (2001), several of the acts amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 U.S.C. 1801-1862, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2522, 2701-2712, 3121-3127, were scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005, 115 Stat. 295 (2001). S. 2167 postpones the expiration dates of those provisions and of Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 ('lone wolf' amendment), 118 Stat. 3742 (2004), until February 3, 2006. The version of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, H.R. 3199, which the Senate sent to conference, primarily addresses the provisions scheduled to expire and related matters such as the issuance of 'national security letters' under 18 U.S.C. 2709. The version of H.R. 3199 upon which the conferees agreed represents a compromise between the Senate version and the version passed by the House. The conference bill also contains provisions, amended by the conferees in several instances, that originated in the House but that in some cases have been considered in the Senate under separate legislative proposals. These include sections relating to the death penalty, seaport security, combating terrorism financing, and methamphetamine abuse."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles; Yeh, Brian T.
2005-12-28
-
USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (H.R. 3199): A Legal Analysis of the Conference Bill [January 17, 2006]
"The USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, H.R. 3199, as reported by the Conference Committee, H.Rept. 109-333 (2005), consists of seven titles. Among other things, Title I makes permanent 14 USA PATRIOT Act sections scheduled to expire on February 3, 2006 as well as the terrorism support amendments scheduled to expire on December 31, 2006. It amends and postpones until December 31, 2009 the expiration of the acts sections 206 and 215 relating to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) orders for roving wiretaps and access to business records. It extends the temporary FISA 'lone wolf' provision to the same date. It clarifies and amends the 'National Security Letter' statutes in a manner designed to ensure their constitutional viability and for other purposes. It authorizes court orders approving wiretapping in the course of investigations of a number of terrorism-related offenses. As for other proposals reported out of conference, Title II revives the death penalty as a sentencing option for air piracy murders committed between 1974 and 1994, permits certain terrorists to be sentenced to a lifetime of supervision following their release from prison, and eliminates the redundant capital punishment procedures found in the Controlled Substances Act. It does not include the other capital punishment adjustments found in the bill which the House sent to conference. Title III carries forward the anti-terrorism, anti-crime proposals found in a separate freestanding seaport protection bill. Title IV reflects in modified form House and Senate suggestions for amending federal confiscation laws and other money laundering adjustments."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles; Yeh, Brian T.
2006-01-17
-
USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (H.R. 3199): A Brief Look [December 9, 2005]
"On December 9, 2005, House and Senate conferees reported out The USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act (H.R. 3199). Among its other provisions, it makes permanent 14 of the 16 USA PATRIOT Act sections scheduled to expire at the end of the year. It provides for greater congressional and judicial oversight of section 215 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) business records orders and section 206 FISA roving wiretaps and calls for both sections to sunset at the end of 2012. It expands law enforcement wiretap authority to cover more than 20 federal crimes. It establishes judicial review and enforcement procedures for national security letters. It revises federal criminal provisions relating to seaport and maritime security. It reenforces [sic] federal money laundering and forfeiture authority particularly in connection with terrorist offenses. It intensifies federal regulation of foreign and domestic commerce in methamphetamine precursors. It foregoes all but technical modifications in federal capital punishment procedures. It makes organization adjustments in the Department of Justice and Secret Service."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles; Yeh, Brian T.
2005-12-09
-
Material Support of Terrorists and Foreign Terrorist Organizations: Sunset Amendments [Updated August 11, 2005]
"Section 6603 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA) temporarily amended two federal terrorist assistance prohibitions. Those amendments expire on December 31, 2006, P.L. 108-458, 118 Stat. 3762-764 (2004). Under the provisions of H.R. 3199, as passed by the House, and S. 1389, as passed by the Senate, the amendments would become permanent. In response to court decisions that found certain of their central terms unconstitutionally vague, section 6603 amended the federal statutes that outlaw assistance to terrorists and foreign terrorist organizations, 18 U.S.C. 2339A, 2339B. Initial judicial reaction suggests they may still be considered vague. Section 6603 temporarily rejected a narrow construction of the knowledge requirements under section 2339B, an interpretation which might have dissipated any vagueness problems. Section 6603 expanded the overseas application of section 2339B as well. It permits federal prosecution of an act proscribed in section 2339B and committed entirely abroad by a foreign national if the offender can be brought to this country for trial. Section 2339A outlaws providing material support or resources with the intent that they be used for the commission of certain predicate terrorism offenses. Section 6603 enlarged the list of predicate offenses to include any federal crime of terrorism (18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5)(B)) and added two crimes to the list, 18 U.S.C. 1361 (destruction of federal property) and 18 U.S.C. 2156 (production of defective national defense material)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2005-08-11
-
USA PATRIOT Act: Background and Comparison of House- and Senate-approved Reauthorization and Related Legislative Action [August 9, 2005]
"The House and Senate have each passed USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Acts, H.R. 3199 and S. 3189. Both make permanent most of the expiring USA PATRIOT Act sections, occasionally in modified form. After amending two of the more controversial expiring sections, 206 (roving Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) wiretaps) and 215 (FISA tangible item access orders (business records-library records)), they postpone their expiration date, S. 1389 until December 31, 2009; H.R. 3199 until December 31, 2015. Both address questions raised as to the constitutionality of various 'national security letter' (NSL) statutes by providing for review, enforcement and exceptions to the attendant confidentiality requirements in more explicit terms. S. 1389 limits its NSL adjustments to the statute that affords federal foreign intelligence investigators access to communications records; H.R. 3199 amends the communications, and the financial institution and credit bureau NSL statutes. H.R. 3199 contains a substantial number of sections that have no counterpart in S. 1389, although many of them have been passed or reported by committee in one House or the other. Its treatment of seaport security, for example, is similar in many respects to that of S. 378, the Reducing Crime and Terrorism at Americas Seaports Act of 2005, as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Its first responder grant program sections are virtually identical to legislation which the House sent to the Senate as H.R. 1544. And its death penalty sections are reminiscent of sections found in H.R. 10 in the 108th Congress as reported the House Judiciary Committee. H.R. 3199 alone permits wiretapping in the investigation of a greater range of federal crimes. It alone expands the use of forfeiture authority against money laundering particularly in terrorism cases."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2005-08-09
