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 and Recent Amendments [Updated March 28,2008]
"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 expanded the authority under four of the NSL statutes and created the fifth. Thereafter, the authority has been reported to have been widely used. Prospects of its continued use dimmed, however, after two lower federal courts held the lack of judicial review and the absolute confidentiality requirements in one of the statutes rendered it constitutionally suspect. The USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act (H.R. 3199), P.L. 109-177, and its companion P.L. 109-178, amended the five NSL sections to expressly provide for judicial review of both the NSLs and the confidentiality requirements that attend them. The sections have also been made explicitly judicially enforceable and sanctions recognized for failure to comply with an NSL request or to breach NSL confidentiality requirements with the intent to obstruct justice. The use of the authority has been made subject to greater Congressional oversight."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2008-03-28
-
National Security Letters in Foreign Intelligence Investigations: Legal Background and Recent Amendments [September 8, 2009]
"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 expanded the authority under four of the NSL statutes and created the fifth. Thereafter, the authority has been reported to have been widely used. Prospects of its continued use dimmed, however, after two lower federal courts held the lack of judicial review and the absolute confidentiality requirements in one of the statutes rendered it constitutionally suspect."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2009-09-08
-
National Security Letters in Foreign Intelligence Investigations: A Glimpse of the Legal Background and Recent Amendments [December 27, 2010]
"Five statutory provisions vest government agencies responsible for certain foreign intelligence investigations (principally the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI]) with authority to issue written commands comparable to administrative subpoenas. These National Security Letters (NSLs) seek customer and consumer transaction information in national security investigations from communications providers, financial institutions, and credit agencies. The USA PATRIOT Act expanded the circumstances under which an NSL could be used. Subsequent press accounts suggested that their use had become widespread. Two lower federal courts found the uncertainties, practices, and policies associated with the use of NSL authority contrary to the First Amendment right of freedom of speech. The USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act, P.L. 109-177, and P.L. 109-178, amend the NSL statutes and related law to address some of the concerns raised by critics and the courts. Following amendment, an appellate court dismissed one of the earlier cases as moot and remanded the second for reconsideration in light of the amendments. On remand, the lower federal court again held the NSLs constitutionally suspect. The Court of Appeals, however, ruled that the amended statutes could withstand constitutional scrutiny, if the government confines itself to a procedure which requires (1) notice to the recipient of its option to object to a secrecy requirement; (2) upon recipient objection, prompt judicial review at the government's petition and burden; and (3) meaningful judicial review without conclusive weight afforded a government certification of risk. [...] A report of the Department of Justice's Inspector General [IG] found that in its early use of its expanded USA PATRIOT Act authority the FBI had 'used NSLs in violation of applicable NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, and internal FBI policies,' but that no criminal laws had been broken. A year later, a second IG report confirmed the findings of the first, and noted the corrective measures taken in response. A third IG report, critical of the FBI's use of exigent letters and other informal NL alternatives, noted that the practice had been stopped and related problems addressed."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2010-12-27
-
Federal Conspiracy Law: A Brief Overview [Updated April 3, 2020]
From the Introduction: "'Almost every headline-grabbing prosecution has involved a conspiracy charge.' Terrorists, drug traffickers, mafia members, and corrupt corporate executives have one thing in common: most are conspirators subject to federal prosecution. Federal conspiracy laws rest on the belief that criminal schemes are equally or more reprehensible than are the substantive offenses to which they are devoted. The Supreme Court has explained that a 'collective criminal agreement--[a] partnership in crime--presents a greater potential threat to the public than individual delicts. Concerted action both increases the likelihood that the criminal object will be successfully attained and decreases the probability that the individuals involved will depart from their path of criminality.' Moreover, observed the Court, '[g]roup association for criminal purposes often, if not normally, makes possible the attainment of ends more complex than those which one criminal could accomplish. Nor is the danger of a conspiratorial group limited to the particular end toward which it has embarked.' Finally, '[c]ombination in crime makes more likely the commission of crimes unrelated to the original purpose for which the group was formed.' In sum, 'the danger which a conspiracy generates is not confined to the substantive offense which is the immediate aim of the enterprise.' Congress and the courts have fashioned federal conspiracy law accordingly."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2020-04-03
-
Federal Conspiracy Law: An Abbreviated Overview [Updated April 3, 2020]
From the Introduction: "'Almost every headline-grabbing prosecution has involved a conspiracy charge.' Terrorists, drug traffickers, mafia members, and corrupt corporate executives have one thing in common: most are conspirators subject to federal prosecution. Federal conspiracy laws rest on the belief that criminal schemes are equally or more reprehensible than are the substantive offenses to which they are devoted. The Supreme Court has explained that a 'collective criminal agreement--[a] partnership in crime--presents a greater potential threat to the public than individual delicts. Concerted action both increases the likelihood that the criminal object will be successfully attained and decreases the probability that the individuals involved will depart from their path of criminality.' Moreover, observed the Court, '[g]roup association for criminal purposes often, if not normally, makes possible the attainment of ends more complex than those which one criminal could accomplish. Nor is the danger of a conspiratorial group limited to the particular end toward which it has embarked.' Finally, '[c]ombination in crime makes more likely the commission of crimes unrelated to the original purpose for which the group was formed.' In sum, 'the danger which a conspiracy generates is not confined to the substantive offense which is the immediate aim of the enterprise.'Congress and the courts have fashioned federal conspiracy law accordingly."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2020-04-03
-
National Security Letters in Foreign Intelligence Investigations: Legal Background [Updated July 30, 2015]
From the Introduction: "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. Over the years, Congress has struggled with efforts to ensure the effectiveness of the NSL authority, while guarding against its abuse."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2015-07-30
-
National Security Letters in Foreign Intelligence Investigations: Legal Background [January 3, 2014]
"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 […] expanded the authority under four of the NSL statutes and created the fifth. Thereafter, the authority has been reported to have been widely used. Prospects of its continued use dimmed, however, after two lower federal courts held that the lack of judicial review and the absolute confidentiality requirements in one of the statutes rendered it constitutionally suspect. A report by the Department of Justice's Inspector General (IG) found that in its pre-amendment 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,' but that no criminal laws had been broken. A year later, a second IG report confirmed the findings of the first, and noted the corrective measures taken in response. A third IG report, critical of the FBI's use of exigent letters and informal NSL alternatives, noted that the practice had been stopped and related problems addressed."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2014-01-03
-
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 in Foreign Intelligence Investigations: A Glimpse at the Legal Background [January 3, 2014]
"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 (107-56) expanded the authority under four of the NSL statutes and created the fifth. Thereafter, the authority has been reported to have been widely used. Prospects of its continued use dimmed, however, after two lower federal courts held that the lack of judicial review and the absolute confidentiality requirements in one of the statutes rendered it constitutionally suspect. A report by the Department of Justice's Inspector General (IG) found that in its pre-amendment 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,' but that no criminal laws had been broken. A year later, a second IG report confirmed the findings of the first, and noted the corrective measures taken in response. A third IG report, critical of the FBI's use of exigent letters and informal NSL alternatives, noted that the practice had been stopped and related problems addressed."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2014-01-03
-
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
-
USA PATRIOT Act Sunset: A Sketch [Updated February 6, 2006]
From the Introduction: "Sunset comes to a handful of communications-related sections of the USA PATRIOT [Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism] Act and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act on March 10, 2006. The authority of the expiring sections remains in effect only as it relates to foreign intelligence investigations begun before sunset or to offenses or potential offenses begun or occurring before that date. Thereafter, the law reverts to its previous form unless it has been amended in the interim or subsequently renewed. 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.'"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2006-02-06
-
Marijuana: Medical and Retail - Selected Legal Issues [April 8, 2015]
"The federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) outlaws the possession, cultivation, and distribution of marijuana except for authorized research. More than 20 states have regulatory schemes that allow possession, cultivation, and distribution of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Four have revenue regimes that allow possession, cultivation, and sale generally. The U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause preempts any state law that conflicts with federal law. Although there is some division, the majority of state courts have concluded that the federal-state marijuana law conflict does not require preemption of state medical marijuana laws. The legal consequences of a CSA violation, however, remain in place. Nevertheless, current federal criminal enforcement guidelines counsel confining investigations and prosecutions to the most egregious affront to federal interests. Legal and ethical considerations limit the extent to which an attorney may advise and assist a client intent on participating in his or her state's medical or recreational marijuana system. Bar associations differ on the precise boundaries of those limitations. State medical marijuana laws grant registered patients, their doctors, and providers immunity from the consequences of state law. The Washington, Colorado, Oregon, and Alaska retail marijuana regimes authorize the commercial exploitation of the marijuana market in small taxable doses."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garvey, Todd; Doyle, Charles; Carpenter, David Hatcher
2015-04-08
-
RICO: An Abridged Sketch [Updated August 3, 2021]
From the Introduction: "Congress enacted the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) provisions as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. Despite its name and origin, RICO is not limited to 'mobsters' or members of 'organized crime,' as those terms are popularly understood. Rather, it covers those activities that Congress felt characterized the conduct of organized crime, no matter who actually engages in them. RICO builds on other crimes. It enlarges the civil and criminal consequences of the patterned commission of other state and federal offenses (otherwise known as predicate offenses or racketeering activity), making it a crime to be a criminal, under certain circumstances."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2021-08-03
-
RICO: A Brief Sketch [Updated August 3, 2021]
From the Introduction: "Congress enacted the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) provisions as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. Despite its name and origin, RICO is not limited to 'mobsters' or members of 'organized crime,' as those terms are popularly understood. Rather, it covers those activities which Congress felt characterized the conduct of organized crime, no matter who actually engages in them. RICO builds on other crimes. It enlarges the civil and criminal consequences of the patterned commission of other state and federal offenses (otherwise known as predicate offenses or racketeering activity), making it a crime to be a criminal, under certain circumstances."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2021-08-03
-
Extradition To and From the United States: Overview of the Law and Recent Treaties [Updated August 3, 2007]
From the Summary: "'Extradition' is the formal surrender of a person by a State to another State for prosecution or punishment. Extradition to or from the United States is a creature of treaty. The United States has extradition treaties with over a hundred of the nations of the world, although they are many with whom it has no extradition treaty. International terrorism and drug trafficking have made extradition an increasingly important law enforcement tool. This is a brief overview of the adjustments made in recent treaties to accommodate American law enforcement interests, and then a nutshell overview of the federal law governing foreign requests to extradite a fugitive found in this country and a United States request for extradition of a fugitive found in a foreign country. Extradition treaties are in the nature of a contract and generate the most controversy with respect to those matters for which extradition may not be had. In addition to an explicit list of crimes for which extradition may be granted, most modern extradition treaties also identify various classes of offenses for which extradition may or must be denied. Common among these are provisions excluding purely military and political offenses; capital offenses; crimes that are punishable under only the laws of one of the parties to the treaty; crimes committed outside the country seeking extradition; crimes where the fugitive is a national of the country of refuge; and crimes barred by double jeopardy or a statute of limitations."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2007-08-03
-
Death Penalty: Capital Punishment Legislation in the 110th Congress [September 7, 2007]
"The Death Penalty: Capital Punishment Legislation in the 110th Congress Summary Most capital offenses are state crimes. In 1994, however, Congress revived the death penalty as a federal sentencing option. More than a few federal statutes now proscribe offenses punishable by death. A number of bills have been offered during the 110th Congress to modify federal law in the area. One, S. 447 (Sen. Feingold), would abolish the federal death penalty. Others would increase the number of capital offenses to include one or more newly created offenses or existing non-capital offenses newly designated as capital offenses […]. Numbered among the new capital offenses and newly designated capital offenses are murder related to street gang offenses or Travel Act violations, murder committed during and in relation to drug trafficking, murder committed in the course of evading border inspection, murder of disaster assistance workers, and various terrorism-related murders. A third category of proposals would adjust in one way or another the procedures used to try and sentence capital defendants, including those relating to where a capital offense may be tried, the appointment of counsel in capital cases, the pre-trial notification which the parties must exchange in capital cases, the procedures that apply when the defendant claims to be mentally retarded, adjustments in the statutory aggravating and mitigating circumstances, jury matters, and the site of federal executions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2007-09-07
-
Federal Habeas Corpus: A Brief Legal Overview [April 26, 2006]
"Federal habeas corpus is a procedure under which a federal court may review the legality of an individual's incarceration. It is most often the stage of the criminal appellate process that follows direct appeal and any available state collateral review. The law in the area is an intricate weave of statute and case law. Current federal law operates under the premise that with rare exceptions prisoners challenging the legality of the procedures by which they were tried or sentenced get 'one bite of the apple.' Relief for state prisoners is only available if the state courts have ignored or rejected their valid claims, and there are strict time limits within which they may petition the federal courts for relief. Moreover, a prisoner relying upon a novel interpretation of law must succeed on direct appeal; federal habeas review may not be used to establish or claim the benefits of a 'new rule.' Expedited federal habeas procedures are available in the case of state death row inmates if the state has provided an approved level of appointed counsel. The Supreme Court has held that Congress enjoys considerable authority to limit, but not to extinguish, access to the writ."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2006-04-26
-
USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005: A Sketch [March 28, 2006]
From the Summary: "Several sections of the USA PATRIOT [Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism] Act and one section of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 were originally scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005; however, Congress extended their expiration date until March 10, 2006. In July 2005, both Houses approved USA PATRIOT reauthorization acts, H.R. 3199 and S. 1389, and the conference committee filed a report accompanying H.R. 3199, H.Rept. 109-333. A separate bill, the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006 (S. 2271), provides civil liberties safeguards not included in the conference report. Both H.R. 3199 and S. 2271 were signed into law (P.L. [Public Law] 109-177 and P.L. 109-178) by the President on March 9, 2006. The USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (the Act) makes permanent 14 of the 16 USA PATRIOT Act sections scheduled to expire at the end of the year. Among other things, the Act 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 2009. It establishes judicial review and enforcement procedures for national security letters. The Act expands law enforcement wiretap authority to cover more than 20 federal crimes. It revises federal criminal provisions relating to seaport and maritime security. The Act reinforces federal money laundering and forfeiture authority, particularly in connection with terrorist offenses. It intensifies federal regulation of foreign and domestic commerce in methamphetamine precursors."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles; Yeh, Brian T.
2006-03-28
-
Federal Habeas Corpus: An Abridged Sketch [April 28, 2006]
"Federal habeas corpus as we know it is by and large a procedure under which a federal court may review the legality of an individual's incarceration. It is most often invoked after conviction and the exhaustion of the ordinary means of appeal. It is at once the last refuge of scoundrels and the last hope of the innocent. It is an intricate weave of statute and case law whose reach has flowed and ebbed over time. Current federal law operates under the premise that with rare exceptions prisoners challenging the legality of the procedures by which they were tried or sentenced get 'one bite of the apple.' Relief for state prisoners is only available if the state courts have ignored or rejected their valid claims, and there are strict time limits within which they may petition the federal courts for relief. Moreover, a prisoner relying upon a novel interpretation of law must succeed on direct appeal; federal habeas review may not be used to establish or claim the benefits of a 'new rule.' Expedited federal habeas procedures are available in the case of state death row inmates if the state has provided an approved level of appointed counsel. The Supreme Court has held that Congress enjoys considerable authority to limit, but not to extinguish, access to the writ."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2006-04-28
-
USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005: A Legal Analysis [Updated December 21, 2006]
From the Summary: "Several sections of the USA PATRIOT Act and one section of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 were originally scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005. In July 2005, both Houses approved USA PATRIOT reauthorization acts, H.R. 3199 and S. 1389, and the conference committee filed a report, H.Rept. 109-333. A separate bill, the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006 (S. 2271), provided civil liberties safeguards not included in the conference report. Both H.R. 3199 and S. 2271 were signed into law (P.L. 109-177 and P.L. 109-178) by the President on March 9, 2006. This report describes the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (the Act) and, where appropriate, discusses the modifications to law made by the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles; Yeh, Brian T.
2006-12-21
-
Court Security Improvement Act of 2007: A Legal Analysis of Public Law 110-177 (H.R. 660 and S. 378) [Updated January 14, 2008]
From the Summary: "The proposals of the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007 (P.L. [Public Law] 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
-
Terrorism: Some Legal Restrictions on Military Assistance to Domestic Authorities Following a Terrorist Attack [September 14, 2001]
From the Summary: "The Constitution empowers to 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. 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 and frustrate prosecution of terrorists. For a more complete discussion, see CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report 95-964, 'The Posse Comitatus Act &Related Matters: The Use of the Military to Execute Civilian Law'."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2001-09-14
-
Government Collection of Private Information: Background and Issues Related to the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization [June 16, 2011]
"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 legislation made most of these changes permanent. However, a number of authorities affecting the collection of foreign intelligence information are still temporary. Three such provisions (the lone wolf, roving wiretap, and business record sections of FISA) are set to expire on June 1, 2015. 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, 2012."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles; Liu, Edward C.
2011-06-16
-
Warrantless, Police-Triggered Exigent Searches: Kentucky v. King in the Supreme Court [June 17, 2011]
"Authorities may enter and search a home without a warrant if they have probable cause and reason to believe that evidence is being destroyed within the home. So declared the United States Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision, Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849 (2011)(No. 09-1272). The Kentucky Supreme Court had overturned King's conviction for marijuana possession and drug dealing, because the evidence upon which it was based had been secured following a warrantless search which failed to conform with that court's restrictions under its 'police-created exigencies' doctrine. The Fourth Amendment usually permits authorities to search a home only if they have both probable cause and a warrant. The warrant requirement may be excused in the presence of exigent circumstances, for instance, when it appears the occupants are attempting to flee or to destroy evidence. Leery lest authorities create exigent circumstances to avoid the warrant requirement, some state and lower federal courts had adopted one form or another of a police-created exigencies doctrine. The Court rejected each of these and endorsed searches conducted under the exigent circumstance exception, unless authorities had created the exigency by threatening to, or engaging in, activities which themselves violated the Fourth Amendment. In order to reach the question of limitations on police-created exigencies, the Court assumed the existence of exigent circumstances in King. The concerns from which the police-created exigencies doctrine emerged may now give rise to more stringent standards for what qualifies as an exigency."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2011-06-17
-
National Security Letters in Foreign Intelligence Investigations: A Glimpse of the Legal Background and Recent Amendments [Updated March 28, 2008]
From the Summary: "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. [Public Law] 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 [IG] found that in its early use of its expanded USA PATRIOT Act authority the FBI had 'used NSLs in violation of applicable NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, and internal FBI policies,' but that no criminal laws had been broken. A year later, a second IG report confirmed the findings of the first, and noted the corrective measures taken in response. 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
-
Extradition To and From the United States: Overview of the Law and Recent Treaties [March 17, 2010]
"'Extradition' is the formal surrender of a person by a State to another State for prosecution or punishment. Extradition to or from the United States is a creature of treaty. The United States has extradition treaties with over a hundred nations, although they are many countries with which it has no extradition treaty. International terrorism and drug trafficking have made extradition an increasingly important law enforcement tool. This is a brief overview of the adjustments made in recent treaties to accommodate American law enforcement interests, and then a nutshell overview of the federal law governing foreign requests to extradite a fugitive found in this country and a United States request for extradition of a fugitive found in a foreign country. Extradition treaties are in the nature of a contract and generate the most controversy with respect to those matters for which extradition may not be had. In addition to an explicit list of crimes for which extradition may be granted, most modern extradition treaties also identify various classes of offenses for which extradition may or must be denied. Common among these are provisions excluding purely military and political offenses; capital offenses; crimes that are punishable under only the laws of one of the parties to the treaty; crimes committed outside the country seeking extradition; crimes where the fugitive is a national of the country of refuge; and crimes barred by double jeopardy or a statute of limitations."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles; Garcia, Michael John
2010-03-17
-
Court Security Improvement Act of 2007: H.R. 660/S. 378 in Brief [February 20, 2007]
From the Summary: "The Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have introduced the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, H.R. 660/S. 378 in a form that mirrors legislation that passed the Senate at the close of the 109th Congress. The bill consists of four components: adjustments to applicable provisions of criminal law, reinforcement of the authority and oversight features of the law governing federal judicial security, grant programs to facilitate increased security for the judiciary of the states, and miscellaneous provisions whose relation to judicial security might initially appear remote. This is a brief discussion of the legal background of each component."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2007-02-20
-
Extradition Between the United States and Great Britain: A Sketch of the 2003 Treaty [Updated October 10, 2006]
"Federal court denial of British extradition requests in the cases of four fugitives from Northern Ireland led to the Supplementary Extradition Treaty. The Treaty proved controversial, and before the Senate would give its consent, it insisted upon modifications, some quite unusual. Those modifications have been eliminated in a newly negotiated treaty to which the Senate has recently given its advice and consent and which incorporates features often more characteristic of contemporary extradition treaties with other countries. The Senate conditioned its approval of the Treaty upon an understanding, two declarations and three provisos which relate to the Treaty's treatment of the exception for politically motivated requests and the role of the courts, its changes in the double jeopardy clause, assurances that the Treaty is not designed to accomplish the extradition of fugitives from Northern Ireland covered by the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, and reporting requirements concerning the disposition of requests under the Treaty. This report is an abridged version (without footnotes or citations) of CRS Report RL32096, 'Extradition Between the United States and Great Britain: The 2003 Treaty.'"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2006-10-10
-
Extradition Between the United States and Great Britain: The 2003 Treaty [Updated October 10, 2006]
"Federal court denial of British extradition requests in the cases of four fugitives from Northern Ireland led to the Supplementary Extradition Treaty. The Treaty proved controversial, and before the Senate would give its consent, it insisted upon modifications, some quite unusual. Those modifications have been eliminated in a newly negotiated treaty to which the Senate has recently given its advice and consent and which incorporates features often more characteristic of contemporary extradition treaties with other countries. The Treaty also contains articles relating to capital punishment, waiver of extradition, extradition involving third countries, double jeopardy, the elimination of nationality as a bar to extradition, translations, and deferred prosecution."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2006-10-10
-
Probable Cause, Reasonable Suspicion, and Reasonableness Standards in the Context of the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [January 30, 2006]
"This [memorandum] is in response to your request for a brief description of the Fourth Amendments probable cause, reasonable suspicion, and reasonableness standards. In over simplified terms, probable cause 'exist[s] where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found,' Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 (1996); Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2006-01-30
