Usiness Law: Principles for Today’s Commercial Environment

Chapter 1: The Nature and Sources of Law

1. Nature of Law and Legal Rights

Laws: body of principles that govern conduct and that can be enforced in courts or by administrative agencies; collection or bundle or rights

1. Legal Rights

Right: a legal capacity to require another person to perform or refrain from performing an act; our rights flow from the US Constitution, state constitutions, federal and state statutes and ordinances at the local levels, including cities, counties and boroughs.  Within these sources of rights are also duties.

Duty: an obligation of law imposed on a person to perform or refrain from performing a certain act; coexists with rights

1. Individual Rights

US Constitution gives individuals certain rights: Freedom of Speech, Right to Due Process or a Hearing, Right to Vote; but also Duty to speak in a way that does not cause harm to others

Individuals are free to express opinions about governments or its officials but cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater as it causes unnecessary harm to others

These rights cannot be taken away or violated by any statues, ordinances or court decision.  These rights are framework for structure of government and laws.

1. The Right of Privacy

Right of Privacy: two components—first, right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.  The Fourth Amendment guarantees this portion of the right of privacy.  You may not have your home searched with reasonable suspicion that your home contains evidence of a crime.

If evidence is obtained through an illegal search and seizure, it could be exclude from trial because of the Fourth Amendment’s Exclusionary Rule.

Second, protecting individuals again intrusions by others.  Your private life is not subject to public scrutiny when you are a private citizen.  See Roe v Wade, giving women the right to choose whether to have an abortion.  Also, banks may only give out financial information to law enforcement with a warrant during an investigation.  Privacy protection is in place for your SSN.  Buckley Amendment protects students’ grades.

Case Study: Wilson v Layne, 526 US 603 (1999) Search of home of Dominic Wilson (wanted for robbery, theft & assault); warrant was for his parents’ home with Deputy US Marshals & police officers accompanied by Washington Post photographer and reporter.  Filed lawsuit for invasion of privacy and violation of Fourth Amendment rights.  US Supreme Court granted certiorari because of conflicting court decisions regarding photographers and reporters.

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Certiorari was granted to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which held that respondent law enforcement officials were entitled to qualified immunity because petitioners' allegedly violated U.S. Const. amend.  IV right was not clearly established at the time respondents executed an arrest warrant in petitioners' home accompanied by the news media.

OVERVIEW: When respondent law enforcement officials entered petitioners' home to execute an arrest warrant for petitioners' son, they invited media representatives to accompany them. Respondents entered the home and restrained petitioner husband, but they did not find the fugitive son. The media took photographs, but did not publish them. Petitioners sued respondents in their personal capacities for money damages, contending respondents' action involving the media violated their U.S. Const. amend. IV rights.  Petitioners sued federal officials under Bivens, and state officials under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983. The court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court, which held that respondents were entitled to qualified immunity. Although the court held that, such a "media ride" violated U.S. Const. amend. IV, it found that the state of the law was not clearly established at the time the search took place. It was not obvious from the general principles of U.S. Const. amend. IV that respondents' conduct violated the Constitution, and there were no judicial opinions holding the practice unlawful. Therefore, it was not unreasonable that respondents believed their actions were lawful.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed a judgment which held that respondent law enforcement officials were entitled to qualified immunity in petitioners' action for violation of their constitutional rights, because the state of the law regarding presence of the media at the execution of an arrest warrant was not clearly established at the time of execution. Therefore, it was not unreasonable that respondents believed their actions were lawful.

Certiorari is a Latin word meaning "to be informed of, or to be made certain in regard to.”  It is also the name given to certain appellate proceedings for re-examination of actions of a trial court, or inferior appeals court.  The U.S. Supreme Court still uses the term certiorari in the context of appeals.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari.  (informally called "Cert Petition.")  A document which a losing party files with the Supreme Court asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court.  It includes a list of the parties, a statement of the facts of the case, the legal questions presented for review, and arguments as to why the Court should grant the writ.

Writ of Certiorari.  A decision by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a lower court.

1. Privacy and Technology

Case Study: U.S. v. Heckenkamp, 482 F.3d 1142 (CA 9 2007) University of Wisconsin at Madison student who was fired from computer lab hacked into Qualcomm system as well as university system.  FBI, Qualcomm employee (Kennedy) and University employee (Savoy) entered open student’s room to gather evidence with unauthorized access with his password that he gave them.

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant sought review of a judgment from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which convicted him upon a conditional plea of guilty to two counts of recklessly causing damage by intentionally accessing a protected computer without authorization in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1030(a)(5)(B). The conditional plea allowed defendant to appeal the denials of his motions to suppress.

OVERVIEW: Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motions to suppress evidence gathered from a public university network administrator's remote search of defendant's computer and the subsequent search of his computer and dorm room conducted pursuant to the Federal Bureau of Investigations' search warrant. Although the court held that defendant had an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his personal computer which was protected by a screensaver password, located in his dorm room, and subject to no policy allowing the university actively to monitor or audit his computer usage, the court agreed with the district court that the network administrator's limited warrantless remote search of defendant's computer was justified under the "special needs" exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. The administrator reasonably believed that the computer had been used to gain unauthorized access to confidential records and that the search was necessary to protect the security of the university's mail server. The subsequent search of defendant's dorm room was justified based on information obtained by means independent of the university's search of the room.