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).
-
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
-
Supervised Release (Parole): An Abbreviated Outline of Federal Law [March 5, 2015]
"Supervised release replaces parole for federal crimes committed after November 1, 1987. Like parole, supervised release is a term of restricted freedom following an offender's release from prison. The nature of supervision and the conditions imposed during supervised release are also similar to those that applied in the old system of parole. However, whereas parole functions in lieu of a remaining prison term, supervised release begins only after an offender has completed his full prison sentence. A sentencing court determines the duration and conditions for an offender's supervised release term at the time of initial sentencing. As a general rule, federal law limits the maximum duration to five years, although it permits, and in some cases mandates, longer durations for relatively serious drug, sex, and terrorism-related offenses. A sentencing court retains jurisdiction to modify the terms of an offender's supervised release and to revoke the term and return an offender to prison for violation of the conditions. Several conditions are standard features of supervised release. Some conditions, such as a ban on the commission of further crimes, are mandatory. Other conditions, such as an obligation to report to a probation officer, have become standard by practice and by the operation of the federal Sentencing Guidelines, which courts must consider along with other statutorily designated considerations."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2015-03-05
-
Supervised Release (Parole): An Overview of Federal Law [Updated September 28, 2021]
From the Summary: "Federal courts sentence almost 75% of the defendants convicted of federal offenses to a term of supervised release. A term of supervised release is a period following a defendant's release from prison when a probation officer monitors the defendant to ensure compliance with the conditions for the defendant's release. Under some circumstances, the court may terminate the term of supervised release, extend it, or revoke it. Supervised release replaces parole for federal crimes committed after November 1, 1987. Like parole, supervised release is a period of restricted freedom following a defendant's release from prison. The nature of supervision and the conditions imposed during supervised release are similar to those that applied in the earlier system of federal parole. However, while parole operates in lieu of the remainder of an unexpired prison term, supervised release begins only after a defendant has completed his full prison sentence. Where revocation of parole could result in a defendant's return to prison to finish out his original sentence, revocation of supervised release can lead to a return to prison for a term in addition to that imposed for the defendant's original sentence. A sentencing court determines the duration and conditions for a defendant's supervised release at the time of initial sentencing. As a general rule, federal law limits the maximum duration of supervised release to five years, although in the case of serious drug, sex, and terrorism-related offenses it sometimes permits, and sometimes mandates, supervision for a term of any duration or for life."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2021-09-28
-
Supervised Release (Parole): An Abbreviated Outline of Federal Law [Updated September 28, 2021]
From the Introduction: "Federal courts sentence close to three quarters (72.9%) of the defendants convicted of federal offenses to a term of supervised release. Supervised release is the successor to parole in the federal criminal justice system. In the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act, Congress eliminated parole in future cases to create a more determinate federal sentencing structure. In its place, Congress instituted a system that includes supervised release, which applies to all federal crimes committed after November 1, 1987. Both parole and supervised release call for a period of supervision following release from prison and for a return to prison upon a failure to observe designated conditions. Parole ordinarily stands in lieu of a portion of the original term of imprisonment, while supervised release begins only after full service of the original term (less any 'good time' credits). Parole restrictions last no longer than the remainder of a defendant's original sentence. Supervised release restrictions can last for the remainder of a defendant's life, although the court may modify the conditions at any time and may terminate supervised release after a year. Because of their differences, some commentators and judges have highlighted the way that supervised release works differently from parole. Differences and critics notwithstanding, supervised release is now a regular feature of sentencing in the federal system. Parole is not."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2021-09-28
-
Government Collection of Private Information: Background and Issues Related to the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization [December 9, 2009]
From the Summary: "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. Some perceived the changes as necessary to unearth terrorist cells and update investigative authorities to respond to the new technologies and characteristics of ever-shifting threats. Others argued that authorities granted by the USA PATRIOT Act and subsequent measures could unnecessarily undermine constitutional rights over time. […] In addition to the expiring provisions, pending bills address a range of issues, including national security letters, minimization requirements, nondisclosure requirements (gag orders), interception of international communications, and retroactive repeal of communication provider immunity for Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) assistance. 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.
2009-12-09
-
Government Collection of Private Information: Background and Issues Related to the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization [December 23, 2009]
From the Summary: "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."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Henning, Anna C.; Doyle, Charles; Bazan, Elizabeth B.
2009-12-23
-
Wiretapping, Tape Recorders, and Legal Ethics: An Abridged Overview of Questions Posed by Attorney Involvement in Secretly Recording Conversation [August 9, 2012]
"In some jurisdictions, it is unethical for an attorney to secretly record a conversation even though it is not illegal to do so. A few states require the consent of all parties to a conversation before it may be recorded. Recording without mutual consent is both illegal and unethical in those jurisdictions. Elsewhere the issue is more complicated. In 1974, the American Bar Association (ABA) opined that surreptitiously recording a conversation without the knowledge or consent of all of the participants violated the ethical prohibition against engaging in conduct involving 'dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.' The ABA conceded, however, that law enforcement recording, conducted under judicial supervision, might breach no ethical standard. Reaction among the authorities responsible for regulation of the practice of law in the various states was mixed. In 2001, the ABA reversed its earlier opinion and announced that it no longer considered one-party consent recording per se unethical when it is otherwise lawful. Today, this is the view of a majority of the jurisdictions on record. A substantial number, however, disagree. An even greater number have yet to announce an opinion. An earlier version of this report once appeared as CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report 98-251. An unabridged version of this report is available with the footnotes and attachment as CRS Report R42650, 'Wiretapping, Tape Recorders, and Legal Ethics: An Overview of Questions Posed by Attorney Involvement in Secretly Recording Conversation.'"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2012-08-09
-
Qui Tam: An Abridged Look at the False Claims Act and Related Federal Statutes [Updated April 26, 2021]
From the Introduction: "Qui tam is a whistleblower concept. It is the process whereby an individual sues or prosecutes in the name of the government and shares in the proceeds of any successful litigation or settlement. Although frequently punitive, it is generally a civil proceeding. Unlike antitrust, RICO [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act], and other federal punitive-damage, private-attorney-general provisions, the individual who brings the suit in the name of the United States (called a relator) need not have been a victim of the misconduct giving rise to the litigation. The name qui tam is the shortened version of an oft-abbreviated Latin phrase which roughly translates to 'he who prosecutes for himself as well as for the King.' [...] [Q]ui tam has been authorized by legislative bodies when they consider the enforcement of some law beyond the unaided capacity or interest of authorized law enforcement officials. Best known of the contemporary members of the line is the federal False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733). From 1986 until expansion of the Act in 2009, Justice Department recoveries totaled in excess of $20 billion. Since then, the Justice Department has recovered over $40 billion, including over $3 billion in FY 2019. This is a brief discussion of the history of federal qui tam provisions; of the two existing federal qui tam statutes--the False Claims Act and an Indian protection provision--and of the constitutional questions raised by federal qui tam provisions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2021-04-26
-
Qui Tam: The False Claims Act and Related Federal Statutes [Updated April 26, 2021]
From the Introduction: "Qui tam is a whistleblower concept. It is the process whereby an individual sues or prosecutes in the name of the government and shares in the proceeds of any successful litigation or settlement. Although frequently punitive, it is generally a civil proceeding. Unlike antitrust, RICO [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act], and other federal punitive-damage, private-attorney-general provisions, the individual who brings the suit in the name of the United States (called a relator) need not have been a victim of the misconduct giving rise to the litigation. The name qui tam is the shortened version of an oft abbreviated Latin phrase which roughly translates to 'he who prosecutes for himself as well as for the King.' Qui tam comes to us from before the dawn of the common law. Reviled at various times throughout the ages as a breeding ground for 'viperous vermin' and parasites, qui tam has been authorized by legislative bodies when they consider the enforcement of some law beyond the unaided capacity or interest of authorized law enforcement officials. Best known of the contemporary members of the line is the federal False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733). From 1986 until expansion of the Act in 2009, Justice Department recoveries totaled in excess of $20 billion. Since then, the Justice Department has recovered over $40 billion, including over $3 billion in FY2019. This report discusses the history of federal qui tam provisions; the two existing federal qui tam statutes--the False Claims Act and an Indian protection provision; and the constitutional questions raised by federal qui tam provisions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2021-04-26
-
Deprivation of Honest Services as a Basis for Federal Mail and Wire Fraud Convictions [September 16, 2011]
"The United States Supreme Court in 'Skilling v. United States' construed the honest services branch of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes to reach no more than cases involving bribery or kickbacks. The mail and wire fraud statutes, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1341 and 1343, impose criminal penalties for the use of mail or interstate wire communications to deprive another of money or property through a 'scheme or artifice to defraud.' In its 1987 'McNally' decision, the Court had held that while the fraud statutes reached schemes to deprive another of property rights, they did not cover 'the intangible right of the citizenry to good government.' Congress responded almost immediately by enacting the 'honest services' statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 1346, which declares that the phrase 'scheme or artifice to defraud' in the mail and wire statutes also encompasses depriving 'another of the intangible right of honest services.' In its 2009 term, the Court was presented with three honest services cases--'Skilling', 'Black', and 'Weyhrauch'. Each offered the Court a slightly different prerequisite for an honest services conviction--for 'Weyhrauch', a public official, it was an underlying state law violation; for Black, in the private sector, it was foreseeable harm; for 'Skilling', an Enron executive, it was private gain. […] The Court sent each of the three cases back to the lower courts--'Black' and 'Skilling', for a determination of whether erroneous jury instructions on honest services fraud had so tainted their convictions as to require a new trial or whether the instructions simply constituted harmless error; 'Weyhrauch', for the reconsideration in light of the Court's 'Skilling' decision."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2011-09-16
-
Prosecution of Public Corruption: An Overview of Amendments Under H.R. 2572 and S. 401 [September 21, 2011]
"The Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act (S. 401) and the Clean Up Government Act of 2011 (H.R. 2572) are virtually identical proposals, one introduced by Senator Leahy and the other by Representative Sensenbrenner. They would expand the scope of the federal criminal statutes under which public corruption is prosecuted, increase the penalties for public corruption, and amend related procedures to facilitate prosecution. Many of the bills' proposals have been under consideration since 110th Congress. Several would extend the reach of federal anticorruption statutes read narrowly in 'Skilling, Sun Diamond, Cleveland', and 'Valdes.'"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2011-09-21
-
Prosecution of Public Corruption: An Abridged Overview of Amendments Under H.R. 2572 and S. 401 [September 21, 2011]
"The Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act (S. 401) and the Clean Up Government Act of 2011 (H.R. 2572) are virtually identical proposals, one introduced by Senator Leahy and the other by Representative Sensenbrenner. Federal officials prosecute corruption--public and private; federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal--under a number of statutes including those that outlaw bribery, bribery involve federal programs, mail fraud, and/or wire fraud. The bills would expand the scope of these and related federal statutes, increase the penalties for those convicted, and amend related procedures to facilitate prosecution. The bills represent a merger of two prior efforts. One involved reactions to the Supreme Court's 'Skilling' decision which limited honest services mail and wire fraud prosecutions to cases of bribery and kickbacks. The other involved a more general concern over the state of law in the area of public corruption. The Senate Judiciary Committee addressed this second concern when it reported S. 1946 to floor during the 110th Congress. The bills track many of the provisions in that earlier proposal. They also mirror proposals offered in the last Congress in the wake of 'Skilling.'"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2011-09-21
-
Extradition Between the United States and Great Britain: The 2003 Treaty [Updated May 6, 2004]
From the Document: "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 which awaits Senate action and which incorporates features often more characteristic of contemporary extradition treaties with other countries. There has been criticism of the new Treaty's; exemptions to the political offense bar to extradition; elimination of judicial inquiry into politically motivated extradition request; treatment of probable cause; clause relating to extradition for crimes committed overseas; dropping the statute of limitations defense; discretionary authority for provisional arrest and detention; language relating to the seizure of assets; exceptions to the rule of specialty (permitting prosecution for crimes other than those for which extradition was granted); and retroactive application."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2004-05-06
-
Crime Victims' Rights Act: A Summary and Legal Analysis of 18 U.S.C. § 3771 [Updated June 8, 2021]
From the Summary: "Section 3771 of Title 18 of the 'United States Code' is a statutory bill of rights for the victims of crimes committed in violation of federal law or the laws of the District of Columbia. It defines a victim as anyone directly and proximately harmed by such an offense, individuals and legal entities alike. It does not appear to otherwise include family members of a deceased, child, or incapacitated victim except in a representative capacity. Numbered among the rights it conveys are: (1) the right to be reasonably protected from the accused; (2) the right to notification of public court and parole proceedings and of any release of the accused; (3) the right not to be excluded from public court proceedings under most circumstances; (4) the right to be heard in public court proceedings relating to bail, the acceptance of a plea bargain, sentencing, or parole; (5) the right to confer with the prosecutor; (6) the right to restitution under the law; (7) the right to proceedings free from unwarranted delays; (8) the right to be treated fairly and with respect to one's dignity and privacy; (9) the right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement; and (10) the right to be informed of the statutory rights and services to which one is entitled. The section directs the federal courts and law enforcement officials to see to it that the rights it creates are honored. Both victims and prosecutors may assert the rights and seek review from the appellate courts should the rights be initially denied."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2021-06-08
-
Crime Victims' Rights Act: A Sketch of 18 U.S.C. § 3771 [Updated June 8, 2021]
From the Summary: "Section 3771 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code is a statutory bill of rights for the victims of crimes committed in violation of federal law or the laws of the District of Columbia. It defines a victim as anyone directly and proximately harmed by such an offense, individuals and legal entities alike. It does not appear to otherwise include family members of a deceased, child, or incapacitated victim except in a representative capacity. Numbered among the rights it conveys are: (1) the right to be reasonably protected from the accused; (2) the right to notification of public court and parole proceedings and of any release of the accused; (3) the right not to be excluded from public court proceedings under most circumstances; (4) the right to be heard in public court proceedings relating to bail, the acceptance of a plea bargain, sentencing, or parole; (5) the right to confer with the prosecutor; (6) the right to restitution under the law; (7) the right to proceedings free from unwarranted delays; (8) the right to be treated fairly and with respect to one's dignity and privacy; (9) the right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement; and (10) the right to be informed of the statutory rights and services to which one is entitled. The section directs the federal courts and law enforcement officials to see to it that the rights it creates are honored."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2021-06-08
-
Federal Capital Offenses: An Overview of Substantive and Procedural Law [November 17, 2011]
"Murder is a federal capital offense if committed in any of more than 50 jurisdictional settings. The Constitution defines the circumstances under which the death penalty may be considered a sentencing option. With an eye to those constitutional boundaries, the Federal Death Penalty Act and related statutory provisions govern the procedures under which the death penalty is imposed. Some defendants are ineligible for the death penalty regardless of the crimes for which they are accused. Children and those incompetent to stand trial may not face the death penalty; pregnant women and the mentally retarded may not be executed. There is no statute of limitations for murder, and the time constraints imposed by the due process and speedy trial clauses of the Constitution are rarely an impediment to prosecution. On the other hand, the decision to seek or forgo the death penalty in a capital case must be weighed by the Justice Department's Capital Review Committee and approved by the Attorney General. […] The Federal Death Penalty Act permits consideration of any relevant mitigating factor, and identifies a few, such as the absence of prior criminal record or the fact that a co-defendant, equally or more culpable, has escaped with a lesser sentence. The Federal Death Penalty Act recognizes other capital offenses that do not necessarily involve murder: treason, espionage, large-scale drug trafficking, and attempted murder to obstruct a drug kingpin investigation. The constitutional standing of these is less certain or at least different. This report is available in an abridged form as CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report R42096, 'Federal Capital Offenses: An Abridged Overview of Substantive and Procedural Law', without the footnotes or attribution of authority or for quotations found here."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2011-11-17
-
Federal Capital Offenses: An Abridged Overview of Substantive and Procedural Law [November 17, 2011]
"Murder is a federal capital offense if committed in any of more than 50 jurisdictional settings. The Constitution defines the circumstances under which the death penalty may be considered a sentencing option. With an eye to those constitutional boundaries, the Federal Death Penalty Act and related statutory provisions govern the procedures under which the death penalty is imposed. Some defendants are ineligible for the death penalty regardless of the crimes for which they are accused. Children and those incompetent to stand trial may not face the death penalty; pregnant women and the mentally retarded may not be executed. There is no statute of limitations for murder, and the time constraints imposed by the due process and speedy trial clauses of the Constitution are rarely an impediment to prosecution. On the other hand, the decision to seek or forgo the death penalty in a capital case must be weighed by the Justice Department's Capital Review Committee and approved by the Attorney General. […] The Federal Death Penalty Act permits consideration of any relevant mitigating factor, and identifies a few, such as the absence of prior criminal record or the fact that a co-defendant, equally or more culpable, has escaped with a lesser sentence. The Federal Death Penalty Act recognizes other capital offenses that do not necessarily involve murder: treason, espionage, large scale drug trafficking, and attempted murder to obstruct a drug kingpin investigation. The constitutional standing of these is less certain or at least different. This report is an abridged form of CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report R42095, 'Federal Capital Offenses: An Overview of Substantive and Procedural Law', without the footnotes or attribution of authority and for quotations found in the longer version."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2011-11-17
-
Statutes of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview [October 1, 2012]
From the Introduction: "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
-
Extradition To and From the United States: Overview of the Law and Recent Treaties [Updated September 30, 2003]
"The laws of the country of refuge and the applicable extradition treaty govern
extradition back to the United States of a fugitive located overseas. Requests travel through diplomatic channels and the only issue likely to arise after extradition to this country is whether the extraditee has been tried for crimes other than those for which he or she was extradited. The fact that extradition was ignored and a fugitive forcibly returned to the United States for trial constitutes no jurisdictional impediment to trial or punishment. Federal and foreign immigration laws sometimes serve as a less controversial alternative to extradition to and from the United States.
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2005-09-30
-
USA PATRIOT Act Sunset: A Sketch [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, unless they are extended. Thereafter, the authority 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. The temporary provisions are: sections 201 (wiretapping in terrorism cases), 202 (wiretapping in computer fraud and abuse felony cases), 203(b) (sharing wiretap information), 203(d) (sharing foreign intelligence information), 204 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) pen register/trap & trace exceptions), 206 (roving FISA wiretaps), 207 (duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who are agents of a foreign power), 209 (seizure of voicemail messages pursuant to warrants), 212 (emergency disclosure of electronic surveillance), 214 (FISA pen register/ trap and trace authority), 215 (FISA access to tangible items), 217 (interception of computer trespasser communications), 218 (purpose for FISA orders), 220 (nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence), 223 (civil liability and discipline for privacy violations), and 225 (provider immunity for FISA wiretap assistance). This report is an abridged version--without footnotes or chart--of CRS Report RL32186, 'USA PATRIOT Act Sunset: Provisions That Expire on December 31, 2005."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2005-06-29
-
USA Patriot Act Sunset: Provisions that Expire on December 31, 2005 [Updated January 27, 2005]
From the Summary: "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. The temporary provisions are: sections 201 (wiretapping in terrorism cases), 202 (wiretapping in computer fraud and abuse felony cases), 203(b) (sharing wiretap information), 203(d) (sharing foreign intelligence information), 204 (Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) pen register/trap & trace exceptions), 206 (roving FISA wiretaps), 207 (duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who are agents of a foreign power), 209 (seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants), 212 (emergency disclosure of electronic surveillance), 214 (FISA pen register/ trap and trace authority), 215 (FISA access to tangible items), 217 (interception of computer trespasser communications), 218 (purpose for FISA orders), 220 (nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence), 223 (civil liability and discipline for privacy violations), and 225 (provider immunity for FISA wiretap assistance); and in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, section 6001 ("lone wolf" FISA orders)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2005-01-27
-
USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization Proposals and Related Matters in Brief [Updated August 1,2005]
"Both Houses have passed proposals to reauthorize USA PATRIOT Act sections scheduled to expire at the end of the year. The House passed H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 on July 15, 2005, 151 Cong. Rec. H6307. The Senate passed the Judiciary Committee reported S. 1389, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005, without amendment. S. 1389 makes permanent all of the expiring USA PATRIOT Act provisions except for sections 206 (roving FISA wiretaps) and 215 (FISA tangible item orders) whose expiration along with that of the lone wolf amendment it postpones until December 31, 2009. H.R. 3199 takes much the same approach but postpones expiration of sections 206 and 215 until December 31, 2015, makes the lone wolf amendment and the 'material support' amendments permanent. Each of the bills amends section 215, the so-called FISA library or business record section, as well as some of the sections they make permanent. Each addresses concerns relating to the use of national security letters. H.R. 3199 alone deals with a wide array of proposals ranging from first responder grants through port security and terrorist penalty enhancements to confiscation expansions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2005-08-01
-
Crime and Forfeiture [January 22, 2015]
"Forfeiture has long been an effective law enforcement tool. Congress and state legislatures have authorized its use for over 200 years. Every year, it redirects property worth billions of dollars from criminal to lawful uses. Forfeiture law has always been somewhat unique. By the close of the 20th century, however, legislative bodies, commentators, and the courts had begun to examine its eccentricities in greater detail because under some circumstances it could be not only harsh but unfair. The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), P.L. 106-185, 114 Stat. 202 (2000), was a product of that reexamination. Modern forfeiture follows one of two procedural routes. Although crime triggers all forfeitures, they are classified as civil forfeitures or criminal forfeitures according to the nature of the procedure which ends in confiscation. Civil forfeiture is an in rem proceeding. The property is the defendant in the case. Unless the statute provides otherwise, the innocence of the owner is irrelevant--it is enough that the property was involved in a violation to which forfeiture attaches. […] Intra- and intergovernmental transfers and the use of special funds are hallmarks of federal forfeiture. Every year, federal agencies share among themselves the proceeds of jointly conducted forfeitures. They also transfer hundreds of millions of dollars and property to state, local, and foreign law enforcement officials as compensation for their contribution to joint enforcement efforts. This report is available in an abridged form, without citations, footnotes, or appendices, as CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report RS22005, Crime and Forfeiture: In Short, by Charles Doyle. For a discussion of selected proposed reforms, see CRS Report R43890, Asset Forfeiture: Selected Legal Issues and Reforms, by Richard M. Thompson II."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2015-01-22
-
SAFE Acts of 2005: H.R. 1526 and S. 737 - A Sketch [May 9, 2005]
From the Summary: "Somewhat different SAFE [Security and Freedom Ensured] Acts have been introduced in both the House and Senate: S. 737, the Security and Freedom Enhancement Act of 2005 (introduced by Senator Craig) and H.R. 1526, the Security and Freedom Ensured Act of 2005 (introduced by Representative Otter). Although the Senate bill is more detailed, they address many of the same issues, most of which relate to the USA PATRIOT Act--roving Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) wiretaps, delayed notification of sneak and peek search warrants, library and similar exemptions from FISA tangible item orders and communications related to national security letters, the definition of domestic terrorism, and expansion of the sunset provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2005-05-09
-
Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE Act) (H.R. 1526) and Security and Freedom Enhancement Act (SAFE Act) (S. 737): Section By Section Analysis [May 9, 2005]
From the Summary: "Two SAFE Acts, S. 737 and H.R. 1526 address some of the issues raised by the USA PATRIOT Act. They amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to require that FISA surveillance orders particularly identify either the target or the facilities or places targeted. They limit delayed notification of sneak and peek searches to cases involving exigent circumstances (injury, flight, destruction of evidence, witness intimidation risks) and cap the extent of permissible delay. Both bills restrict FISA access orders to instances where there are specific and articulable reasons to believe that the records pertain to a foreign power or one or more of its agents."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2005-05-09
-
USA PATRIOT Act at 20: Sneak and Peek Searches [October 27, 2021]
From the Document: "President George W. Bush signed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 ('USA PATRIOT Act' or Act) on October 26, 2001. Section 213 [hyperlink] of the Act, enacted as part of the legislative response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, authorizes sneak and peek search warrants. 'Sneak and peek' refers to the unannounced execution of a warrant on premises where officers observe, examine, measure, conduct tests, and otherwise surreptitiously search, but do not seize tangible property, and where officers thereafter delay notice of the search for 30 days. Notice permits an individual to challenge the legality of the search. It could also lead to flight, destruction of evidence, or placing a witness in peril. In FY2020, under the authority of Section 213, courts issued close to 20,000 such 30-day, delayed-notice search warrants, and approved extended delayed notice beyond 30 days in more than 10,000 cases. Drug cases accounted for more than 70% of the total number of the delayed-notice warrants issued. Authorities used delayed-notice warrants in fewer than 250 terrorism investigations."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles
2021-10-27
