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).
-
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
-
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Legislation in the 114th Congress [April 29, 2015]
"A surprising number of federal crimes carry mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment; that is, they are punishably by imprisonment for a term of not less than some number of years. During the 114th Congress, Members have introduced a number of related proposals. Some would expand the scope of existing mandatory minimum sentencing provisions; others would contract their reach. The most sweeping proposal is that of Representative Scott (VA) (H.R. 706) and Senator Paul (S. 353), which impacts mandatory minimum sentencing across the board, allowing federal courts to disregard statutory mandatory minimum sentencing requirements in order to avoid conflicts with general sentencing standards. Other proposals are more narrowly drawn, and speak to a particular class of crime. Representative Polis (H.R. 1013), for example, has suggested decriminalizing marijuana, thereby eliminating the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions now associated with marijuana."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2015-04-29
-
Federal Grand Jury [May 7, 2015]
"The federal grand jury exists to investigate crimes against the United States and to secure the constitutional right of grand jury indictment. Its responsibilities require broad powers. As an arm of the U.S. District Court which summons it, upon whose process it relies, and which will receive any indictments it returns, the grand jury's subject matter and geographical jurisdiction is that of the court to which it is attached. As a general rule, the law is entitled to everyone's evidence. Witnesses subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury, therefore, will find little to excuse their appearance. Once before the panel, however, they are entitled to benefit of various constitutional, common law and statutory privileges including the right to withhold self-incriminating testimony and the security of confidentiality of their attorney-client communications. They are not, however, entitled to have an attorney with them in the grand jury room when they testify. The grand jury conducts its business in secret. Those who attend its sessions other than witnesses may disclose its secrets only when the interests of justice permit. Unless the independence of the grand jury is overborne, irregularities in the grand jury process ordinarily will not result in dismissal of an indictment, particularly where dismissal is sought after conviction. The concurrence of the attorney for the government is required for the trial of any indictment voted by the grand jury. In the absence of such an endorsement or when a panel seeks to report, the court enjoys narrowly exercised discretion to dictate expungement or permit distribution of the report."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2015-05-07
-
Government Collection of Private Information: Background and Issues Related to the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization in Brief [May 19, 2015]
"This is an abbreviated version of an earlier report, CRS Report R40980, 'Government Collection of Private Information: Background and Issues Related to the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization'. Both discuss the legal background associated with the sunset of various provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and of subsequent related legislation, although neither report seeks to track contemporary legislative developments. Congress enacted the USA PATRIOT Act soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The most controversial sections of the act facilitate the federal government's collection of more information, from a greater number of sources, than had previously been authorized in criminal or foreign intelligence investigations. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and the national security letter (NSL) statutes were all bolstered. With the changes came greater access to records showing an individual's spending and communication patterns as well as increased authority to intercept email and telephone conversations and to search homes and businesses. […] Subsequent legislation made most of these changes permanent. However, a number of authorities affecting the collection of foreign intelligence information are still temporary. For example, subsequent legislation set June 1, 2015, as the expiration date for three such provisions (the lone wolf, roving wiretap, and business record sections of FISA). Additionally, provisions added by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, relating to the use of foreign intelligence tools to target individuals while they are reasonably believed to be abroad, will expire on December 31, 2017."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.; Doyle, Charles
2015-05-19
-
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Legislation in the 113th Congress [November 5, 2013]
"Defendants convicted of violating any certain federal criminal laws face the prospect of mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment. Bills offered during the 113th Congress would supplement, enhance, or eliminate some of these. In the most all-encompassing, H.R. 1695 (Representative Scott (Va.)) and S. 619 (Senator Paul) would permit federal courts to impose a sentence below an otherwise applicable mandatory minimum when necessary to avoid violating certain statutory directives. […] Several proposals add or enhance the mandatory minimums associated with individual offenses. For instance, H.R. 1468 (Representative Blackburn) would create a separate crime for anyone who, during and in relation to a computer fraud or abuse violation, substantially impaired or attempted to impair the operation of a critical infrastructure computer system or an associated critical infrastructure. H.R. 457 (Representative Issa) would establish mandatory minimum penalties for an alien previously removed from the U.S. for his criminal activities. H.R. 1577 (Representative Poe) and S. 698 (Senator Cornyn) would expand the class of protected public servants; increase the penalties associated with homicides committed against them; establish mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment for killing or assaulting them; and create a new flight-to-avoid-prosecution offense for fugitives accused of such crimes, punishable by a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2013-11-05
-
Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The Safety Valve and Substantial Assistance Exceptions [October 21, 2013]
"Federal law requires a sentencing judge to impose a minimum sentence of imprisonment following conviction for any of a number of federal offenses. Congress has created two exceptions. One is available in all cases when the prosecutor asserts that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of another, 18 U.S.C. 3553(e). The other, commonly referred to as the safety value, is available, without the government's approval, for a handful of the more commonly prosecuted drug trafficking and unlawful possession offenses that carry minimum sentences, 18 U.S.C. 3553(f). Qualification for the substantial assistance exception is ordinarily only possible upon the motion of the government. In rare cases, the court may compel the government to file such a motion when the defendant can establish that the refusal to do so was based on constitutionally invalid considerations, or was in derogation of a plea bargain obligation or was the product of bad faith. Qualification for the safety valve exception requires a defendant to satisfy five criteria. His past criminal record must be minimal; he must not have been a leader, organizer, or supervisor in the commission of the offense; he must not have used violence in the commission or the offense, and the offense must not have resulted in serious injury; and prior to sentencing, he must tell the government all that he knows of the offense and any related misconduct. Congress has instructed the United States Sentencing Commission to report on the operation of federal mandatory minimum sentencing provisions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2013-10-21
-
Privacy: An Overview of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping [December 3, 2009]
"This report provides an overview of federal law governing wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping. It also appends citations to state law in the area and contains a bibliography of legal commentary as well as the text of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). [...]Congress has created separate but comparable protective schemes for electronic communications (e.g., e-mail) 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, install and use pen registers and trap and trace devices for law enforcement purposes under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and for purposes of foreign intelligence gathering under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Two FISA provisions, born in the USA PATRIOT Act and dealing with roving wiretaps (section 206) and business records (section 215), are scheduled to expire on December 31, 2009. This report includes a brief summary of the expired Protect America Act, P.L. 110-55 and of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008, P.L. 110-261 (H.R. 6304)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles; Stevens, Gina Marie
2009-12-03
-
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
-
Privacy: An Abbreviated Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping [Updated March 26, 2008]
"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
2008-03-26
-
Privacy: An Overview of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping [Updated January 13, 2003]
"This report provides an overview of federal law governing wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping. It also surveys state law in the area and contains a bibliography of legal commentary. 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 their 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 5 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 mail (e-mail) 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 even more narrowly confined authority to engage in wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping in the name of foreign intelligence gathering in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles; Stevens, Gina Marie
2003-01-13
-
Privacy: An Overview of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping [Updated March 27, 2003]
"This report provides an overview of federal law governing wiretapping and
electronic eavesdropping. It also surveys state law in the area and contains a
bibliography of legal commentary....This report includes a discussion of related USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56, H.R. 3162; 2001) amendments. In addition to the Patriot Act modifications, it reflects changes contained in the legislation establishing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296, H.R. 5005), and in the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (P.L. 107-273, H.R. 2215; 2002)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles; Stevens, Gina Marie
2003-03-27
-
Privacy: An Overview of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping [Updated August 1, 2001]
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 their prior consent. It is likewise a federal crime to use or disclose any information acquired by illegal wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping: This report provides an overview of federal law governing wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping. It also surveys state law in the area and contains a bibliography of legal commentary.
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles; Stevens, Gina Marie
2001-08-01
-
Privacy: An Abbreviated Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping [October 9, 2012]
"This report provides an overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). ECPA consists of three parts. The first, often referred to as Title III, outlaws wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping, except as otherwise provided. The second, the Stored Communications Act, governs the privacy of, and government access to, the content of electronic communications and to related records. The third outlaws the use and installation of pen registers and of trap and trace devices, unless judicially approved for law enforcement or intelligence gathering purposes. FISA consists of seven parts. The first, reminiscent of Title III, authorizes electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence investigations. The second authorizes physical searches in foreign intelligence cases. The third permits the use and installation of pen registers and trap and trace devices in the context of a foreign intelligence investigation. The fourth affords intelligence officials access to business records and other tangible items. The fifth directs the Attorney General to report to Congress on the specifics of the exercise of FISA authority. The sixth, scheduled to expire on December 30, 2012, permits the acquisition of the communications of targeted overseas individuals and entities. The seventh creates a safe harbor from civil liability for those who assist or have assisted in the collection of information relating to the activities of foreign powers and their agents."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles; Stevens, Gina Marie
2012-10-09
-
Privacy: An Overview of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping [September 2, 2008]
"This report provides an overview of federal law governing wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping. It also appends citations to state law in the area and contains a bibliography of legal commentary as well as the text of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). 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 their 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., e-mail) and against the surreptitious use of telephone call monitoring practices such as pen registers and trap and trace devices."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Stevens, Gina Marie; Doyle, Charles
2008-09-02
-
Privacy: An Overview of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping [October 9, 2012]
"This report provides an overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). ECPA consists of three parts. The first, often referred to as Title III, outlaws wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping, except as otherwise provided. The second, the Stored Communications Act, governs the privacy of, and government access to, the content of electronic communications and to related records. The third outlaws the use and installation of pen registers and of trap and trace devices, unless judicially approved for law enforcement or intelligence gathering purposes. FISA consists of seven parts. The first, reminiscent of Title III, authorizes electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence investigations. The second authorizes physical searches in foreign intelligence cases. The third permits the use and installation of pen registers and trap and trace devices in the context of a foreign intelligence investigation. The fourth affords intelligence officials access to business records and other tangible items. The fifth directs the Attorney General to report to Congress on the specifics of the exercise of FISA authority. The sixth, scheduled to expire on December 30, 2012, permits the acquisition of the communications of targeted overseas individuals and entities. The seventh creates a safe harbor from civil liability for those who assist or have assisted in the collection of information relating to the activities of foreign powers and their agents."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Stevens, Gina Marie; Doyle, Charles
2012-10-09
-
SORNA: A Legal Analysis of 18 U.S.C. § 2250 (Failure to Register as a Sex Offender) [Updated November 5, 2021]
From the Introduction: "Federal law punishes convicted sex offenders if they fail to register or to update their registration as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) demands. The basic offense under Section 2250(a) consists of three elements: (1) a continuing obligation to report to the authorities in any jurisdiction in which the individual resides, works, or attends school; (2) the knowing failure to comply with registration requirements; and (3) a jurisdictional element, i.e., (a) an obligation to register as a consequence of a prior qualifying federal conviction or (b)(i) travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or (ii) travel into or out of Indian Country, or (c) residence in Indian Country. Violators face imprisonment for not more than 10 years. The registration offense carries an additional penalty of imprisonment for not more than 30 years, but not less than 5 years, if the offender is also guilty of a federal crime of violence. Federal law also punishes overseas travel coupled with a failure to register that intent. The elements of this shadow or supplemental offense, Section 2250(b), are: (1) an obligation to register; (2) a knowing failure to report an intent to travel internationally; and (3) engaging in or attempting to engage in international travel. The affirmative defense and sentencing provisions are the same as those that apply to the original offense."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2021-11-05
-
SORNA: An Abridged Legal Analysis of 18 U.S.C. § 2250 (Failure to Register as a Sex Offender) [Updated November 5, 2021]
From the Introduction: "Federal law punishes convicted sex offenders if they fail to register or to update their registration as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) demands. The basic offense under Section 2250(a) consists of three elements: (1) a continuing obligation to report to the authorities in any jurisdiction in which the individual resides, works, or attends school; (2) the knowing failure to comply with registration requirements; and (3) a jurisdictional element, i.e., (a) an obligation to register as a consequence of a prior qualifying federal conviction or (b)(i) travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or (ii) travel into or out of Indian Country, or (c) residence in Indian Country. Violators face imprisonment for not more than 10 years. The registration offense carries an additional penalty of imprisonment for not more than 30 years, but not less than 5 years, if the offender is also guilty of a federal crime of violence. Federal law also punishes overseas travel coupled with a failure to register that intent. The elements of this shadow or supplemental offense, Section 2250(b), are: (1) an obligation to register; (2) a knowing failure to report an intent to travel internationally; and (3) engaging in or attempting to engage in international travel. The affirmative defense and sentencing provisions are the same as those that apply to the original offense. The Justice Department indicates that 18 states, 4 territories, and numerous tribes are now in substantial compliance with the 2006 legislation."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2021-11-05
-
Terrorism: Some Legal Restrictions on Military Assistance to Domestic Authorities Following a Terrorist Attack [Updated May 27, 2005]
"The Constitution empowers the President to act as Commander in Chief of the
armed forces and to see to the execution of federal law; it gives Congress the authority to make federal law including laws for the regulation of the armed forces. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits use of the armed forces to perform civilian governmental tasks unless explicitly authorized to do so. There are statutory exceptions to ensure continued enforcement of state and federal law, to provide disaster assistance, and to provide technical support for law enforcement. Further exceptions are proposed (H.R. 1986, H.R. 1815). There are constitutional impediments to the use of the military to nationalize an industry, to try civilians, and to compel state officials to perform federally-imposed duties. Unlawful use of the armed forces might result in criminal or civil liability for responsible authorities and frustrate prosecution of terrorists. For a more complete discussion, see CRS Report 95-964, 'The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: The Use of the Military to Execute Civilian Law."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles; Elsea, Jennifer
2005-05-27
-
Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: The Use of the Military to Execute Civilian Law [August 16, 2012]
"The Constitution permits Congress to authorize the use of the militia 'to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.' And it guarantees the states protection against invasion or usurpation of their 'republican form of government,' and, upon the request of the state legislature, against 'domestic violence.' These constitutional provisions are reflected in the Insurrection Acts, which have been invoked numerous times both before and after passage of the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385, in 1878. Congress has also enacted a number of statutes that authorize the use of the land and naval forces to execute their objective. The Posse Comitatus Act outlaws the willful use of any part of the Army or Air Force to execute the law unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress. History supplies the grist for an argument that the Constitution prohibits military involvement in civilian affairs subject to only limited alterations by Congress or the President, but the courts do not appear to have ever accepted the argument unless violation of more explicit constitutional command could also be shown. […] This report provides an historical analysis of the use of the Armed Forces to execute domestic law and of the Posse Comitatus Act, including their apparent theoretical and constitutional underpinnings. The report then outlines the current application of the act as well as its statutory exceptions, and reviews the consequences of its violation."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles; Elsea, Jennifer
2012-08-16
-
Cybercrime: A Sketch of 18 U.S.C. 1030 and Related Federal Criminal Laws [December 27, 2010]
From the Summary:"The federal computer fraud and abuse statute, 18 U.S.C. [United States Code] 1030, outlaws conduct that victimizes computer systems. It is a computer security law. It protects computers in which there is a federal interest--federal computers, bank computers, and computers used in or affecting interstate and foreign commerce. It shields them from trespassing, threats, damage, espionage, and from being corruptly used as instruments of fraud. It is not a comprehensive provision, instead it fills gaps in the protection afforded by other state and federal criminal laws. It is a work that over the last two decades, Congress has kneaded, reworked, recast, and amended to bolster the uncertain coverage of more general federal trespassing, threat, malicious mischief, fraud, and espionage statutes. This is a brief sketch of section 1030 and some of its federal statutory companions, including the amendments found in the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act of 2008, P.L. 110-326, 122. Stat. 3560 (2008) (H.R. 5938 (110th Congress))."
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
-
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
-
Extraterritorial Application of American Criminal Law [March 26, 2010]
From the Document: "Crime is usually territorial. It is 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. In either case, it most often involves crimes committed aboard a ship or airplane, crimes condemned by international treaty, crimes committed against government employees or property, or crimes that have an impact in this country even if planned or committed in part elsewhere. Although the crimes over which the United States has extraterritorial jurisdiction may be many, so are the obstacles to their enforcement. For both practical and diplomatic reasons, criminal investigations within another country require the acquiescence, consent, or preferably the assistance, of the authorities of the host country. The United States has mutual legal assistance treaties with several countries designed to formalize such cooperative law enforcement assistance. Searches and interrogations carried out jointly with foreign officials, certainly if they involve Americans, must be conducted within the confines of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. And the Sixth Amendment imposes limits upon the use in American criminal trials of depositions taken abroad."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2010-03-26
-
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
-
Government Collection of Private Information: Background and Issues related to the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization [March 2, 2010]
"Congress enacted the USA PATRIOT Act soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The most controversial sections of the act facilitate the federal government's collection of more information, from a greater number of sources, than had previously been authorized in criminal or foreign intelligence investigations. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and the national security letter (NSL) statutes were all bolstered. With the changes came greater access to records showing an individual's spending and communication patterns as well as increased authority to intercept e-mail and telephone conversations and to search homes and businesses. In some cases, evidentiary standards required to obtain court approval for the collection of information were lowered. Other approaches included expanding the scope of information subject to search, adding flexibility to the methods by which information could be collected, and broadening the purposes for which information may be sought. [...] Subsequent measures made most of the USA PATRIOT Act changes permanent. However, three authorities affecting the collection of foreign intelligence information are set to expire on February 28, 2011: the lone wolf, roving wiretap, and business record sections of FISA. The 111th Congress replaced an earlier expiration date with the 2011 date. Before that change was made, the impending expiration prompted legislative proposals which revisit changes made by the USA PATRIOT Act and related measures. [...] This report surveys the legal environment in which the legislative proposals arise."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Bazan, Elizabeth B.; Doyle, Charles; Henning, Anna C. . . .
2010-03-02
-
Administrative Subpoenas and National Security Letters in Criminal and Foreign Intelligence Investigations: Background and Proposed Adjustments [April 15, 2005]
Administrative subpoena authority, including closely related national security letter authority, is the power vested in various administrative agencies to compel testimony or the production of documents or both in aid of the agencies performance of their duties. Administrative subpoenas are not a traditional tool of criminal law investigation, but neither are they unknown. Several statutes at least arguably authorize the use of administrative subpoenas primarily or exclusively for use in a criminal investigation in cases involving health care fraud, child abuse, Secret Service protection, controlled substance cases, and Inspector General investigations. In addition, five statutory provisions vest government officials responsible for certain foreign intelligence investigations with authority comparable to administrative subpoena access to various types of records.
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2005-04-15
-
Administrative Subpoenas and National Security Letters in Criminal and Intelligence Investigations: A Sketch [April 15, 2005]
"Administrative subpoena authority, including closely related national security letter authority, is the power vested in various administrative agencies to compel testimony or the production of documents or both in aid of the agencies performance of their duties. Both the President and Members of Congress have called for statutory adjustments relating to the use of administrative subpoenas and national security letters in criminal and foreign intelligence investigations. One lower federal court has found the sweeping gag orders and lack of judicial review that mark one of the national security letter practices constitutionally defective. Proponents of expanded use emphasize the effectiveness of administrative subpoenas as an investigative tool and question the logic of its availability in drug and health care fraud cases but not in terrorism cases. Critics suggest that it is little more than a constitutionally suspect trophy power, easily abused and of little legitimate use. This is an abridged version - without footnotes, appendices, quotation marks and most citations to authority - of Administrative Subpoenas and National Security Letters in Criminal and Foreign Intelligence Investigations: Background and Proposed Adjustments, CRS Report RL32880."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2005-04-15
-
Cybercrime: An Overview of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Statute and Related Federal Criminal Laws [Updated February 25, 2008]
From the Summary: "The federal computer fraud and abuse statute, 18 U.S.C. 1030, outlaws conduct that victimizes computer systems. It is a computer security law. It protects federal computers, bank computers, and computers connected to the Internet. It shields them from trespassing, threats, damage, espionage, and from being corruptly used as instruments of fraud. It is not a comprehensive provision, but instead it fills crack and gaps in the protection afforded by other federal criminal laws. This is a brief sketch of section 1030 and some of its federal statutory companions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles; Weir, Anthony
2008-02-25
-
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: 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
