USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney not privileged [pdf]
1–10 of 41 posts
Re: USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney not privileged [pdf]
#2With a warrant, that seems legit. You can't just say the magic words and make evidence disappear.
Re: USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney not privileged [pdf]
#3Hi
My hot photos are here..
http://eroxxx.club
My nickname annaxx
Re: USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney not privileged [pdf]
#4> It is important to note that if Correia had simply handed his notebooks and electronic devices to his counsel personally, the documents would not be privileged. “[P]re-existing documents . . . not prepared by the [client] for the purpose of communicating with [her] lawyers in confidence . . . acquire[] no special protection from the simple fact of being turned over to an attorney.”
Re: USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney not privileged [pdf]
#5This title is literally true but misleading. The documents could be seized not because they were sent from overseas, but because the materials inside were not subject to attorney-client privilege in the first place.
> It is important to note that if Correia had simply handed his notebooks and electronic devices to his counsel personally, the documents would not be privileged.
At least in the U.S., attorney-client privilege does not apply to just any old thing you send to your lawyer. It's applicability depends on the content of the communications.
> Because nothing in the package revealed any privileged communications between Correia and his counsel, the package cannot become privileged “merely because it was sent . . . between an attorney and client.”
Re: USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney not privileged [pdf]
#6With a warrant, that seems legit. You can't just say the magic words and make evidence disappear.
Honestly, I would have rather just encrypted everything there, reset the phone and sent it.
I wonder if this package was just to muddy the waters.
Re: USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney not privileged [pdf]
#7This title is literally true but misleading. The documents could be seized not because they were sent from overseas, but because the materials inside were not subject to attorney-client privilege in the first place. > It is important to note that if Correia had simply handed his notebooks and electronic devices to his counsel personally, the documents would not be privileged. At least in the U.S., attorney-client pri…
> The documents could be seized not because they were sent from overseas, but because the materials inside were not subject to attorney-client privilege in the first place.
agreed.
I initially wanted to link to this tweet[1] with more context, but then decided to link to the original content/pdf instead. The word "overseas" should probably be removed but the window that allowed me to edit the title was already over unfortunately. That they happened to be overseas added some nuance (background info) in this specific case but it is confusing in the wider context of the discussion.
[1] Paul Oetken rules that your phone can be seized with a warrant from DHL if you're sending it to your lawyer from overseas. So not a good way to avoid your phone being seized if you know you're going to be arrested on arrival. https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1275095032954052608
Re: USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney not privileged [pdf]
#8Not sure why this'd be a surprise to anyone. Customs can do the same when you cross borders.
https://www.propublica.org/article/can-customs-border-protec...
> According to federal statutes, regulations and court decisions, CBP officers have the authority to inspect, without a warrant, any person trying to gain entry into the country and their belongings. CBP can also question individuals about their citizenship or immigration status and ask for documents that prove admissibility into the country.
Re: USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney not privileged [pdf]
#9Uh... imagine you stab someone, and they figure out it was you but haven't found the knife yet. As this would be the nail in your coffin, you put the knife in an envelope and mail it to your attourney. Do you think that would work? no? then why should it in this case?
Re: USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney not privileged [pdf]
#10With a warrant, that seems legit. You can't just say the magic words and make evidence disappear.
Honestly, I would have rather just encrypted everything there, reset the phone and sent it. I wonder if this package was just to muddy the waters.
Without knowing anything of the case aside from reading this document. This feels like the defendant is between a rock and a hard place and they were hoping to get the information intercepted in an attempt to have the evidence thrown out as their defense strategy.