| | The book and workbook that match this E-Learning module are Your Rights in the Criminal Justice System. You’ve read a lot about how the law changes as society changes. One of the biggest problems with laws these days has to do with all the fast-moving technology. For example, today’s laws are not very clear about things like adults making “virtual” sexual contact with minors through computer chat rooms. We look at this very issue in the case known as United States v. Bach (2002).
Another way to find more information about this case is by using a search engine like Google and searching on the case name. As you read about the case, you’ll find that some old, familiar problems are still around today. The suspect in this case used a familiar defense—an improper search. - Get acquainted with the case of United States v. Bach (2002). Write down the name of the accused, the location of the crime, the nature of the crime, and so on.
- This article comes from an appeals court. Where was the case first heard?
- What information was suppressed in the first trial? Why?
- Review exactly what kind of evidence was obtained against the defendant. Then be sure you understand how each piece of evidence got to the police.
- Did the court decide that the warrant was properly used or not?
- Which constitutional amendment was used by the defense?
- In “Section II, Discussion” of the article, read about e-mails and privacy. Do you expect your e-mails to be completely private?
- Explain how the court viewed the reasonableness standard in regard to the search warrant to review electronic files. Do you think the law is keeping up with new technology?
- What are some other areas of technology where the law might need to change? Don’t limit your thinking to computers. Think about medicine, scientific research, even new construction materials and methods.
Please Note: Civil Survival cannot take the place of a lawyer. The series does not offer specific legal advice. Rather, Civil Survival is simply an educational tool intended to teach basic, general legal principals. Every real-life situation is different, and every city, county, and state has many laws that could affect your legal rights. Please do not rely on Civil Survival for real-life legal problems. If you need legal advice, there are many resources available. You can contact a lawyer or a local legal clinic. There is no guarantee that the content in this E-Learning Studio is up to date or accurate enough to be relied on instead of a lawyer. Please remember that the Civil Survival Series is not a substitute for the advice of a trained lawyer. CNN.com, “Supreme Court Upholds Long Sentences under 3-Strikes-You’re-Out Law,” California’s three-strikes laws
Cornell University Law School’s Legal Institute Information Bulletin, Hammond v. Indiana (2005)
Cornell University Law School’s Supreme Court Collection, Clark v. Arizona (2006)
Cornell University Law School’s Supreme Court Collection, Davis v. Washington (2006)
Crime Stoppers USA
FindLaw.com, Ewing v. California
FindLaw.com, Nix v. Williams, fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR, aka Consumer Watchdog)
Indiana, failure to return to the scene of an accident resulting in death, Nelson v. Indiana (2006)
Law.com Dictionary
’Lectric Law Library, entry on “due process”
’Lectric Law Library, entry on “writ of habeas corpus”
Los Angeles, California, Police Department, “Solve a Crime” page
Louisiana State University’s Medical and Public Health Law Site, “9th Cir. Limits DNA Testing of Convicts,” USA v. Kincade (2004)
Monroe County, New York, Office of the Conflict Defender, “Issue: At a Criminal Trial, May the Jury Decide Legal or Constitutional Issues?”
Montgomery County, Ohio, Court of Appeals, Ohio v. Taylor (2006)
National Crime Prevention Council, “Current Campaigns”
Olmstead v. United States (1928)
Online Lawyer Source
Oyez: U.S. Supreme Court Media, search by specific case name for media coverage of Court decisions
Public Broadcasting Service, Frontline, “The Plea: Frequently Asked Questions”
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, “A Practical Guide to Taping Phone Calls and In-person Conversations in the 50 States and D.C.” United States v. Bach, (2002) Virginia Court of Appeals, Jones v. Commonwealth of Virginia (2006)
Virginia Court of Appeals, Moore v. Commonwealth of Virginia (2006)
Wisconsin Department of Justice, Criminal Litigation, Antitrust, Consumer Protection, and Public Integrity Unit | |
