Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney not privileged [pdf]

courtlistener.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 41 posts

Re: USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney not privileged [pdf]

#11

Post by GavinMcG »

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #9

Uh... 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?

I'll argue that that should work, on some level. Communication with one's attorney is privileged for a good reason, and under your theory the police can interfere with that whenever they imagine the package you've mailed isn't a communication.

Re: USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney not privileged [pdf]

#12

Post by rabanne »

Hmmn, I always thought "communications for the purpose of securing legal advice" was recognized more broadly.

If I send a copy of a document which can incriminate myself and was created before hiring a lawyer, to a lawyer for legal advice, can the government seize it? If so, if I outline a document after hiring a lawyer and then send it for legal advice, can the government seize it?

Re: USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney not privileged [pdf]

#13

Post by mc32 »

rabanne wrote: post #12

Hmmn, I always thought "communications for the purpose of securing legal advice" was recognized more broadly. If I send a copy of a document which can incriminate myself and was created before hiring a lawyer, to a lawyer for legal advice, can the government seize it? If so, if I outline a document after hiring a lawyer and then send it for legal advice, can the government seize it?

I think if you start contacting lawyers something like “hey I did a bank heist, I need your advice” before establishing client-lawyer privilege then that communication isn’t automatically privileged by “confidence”.

Re: USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney not privileged [pdf]

#14

Post by fireattack »

GavinMcG wrote: post #11
DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #9

Uh... 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?

I'll argue that that should work, on some level. Communication with one's attorney is privileged for a good reason, and under your theory the police can interfere with that whenever they imagine the package you've mailed isn't a communication.

I failed to see how you conclude mailing a bloody knife should work from your second sentence (which I agree).

Communication should/is privileged, but obviously not any package should be considered as "communication", and even at the worst scenario, having the police to interfere the package whenever they want still doesn't stop you to practice your privilege of communication since there are lots of other forms of communication.

Re: USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney not privileged [pdf]

#16

Post by PaulAJ »

rabanne wrote: post #12

Hmmn, I always thought "communications for the purpose of securing legal advice" was recognized more broadly. If I send a copy of a document which can incriminate myself and was created before hiring a lawyer, to a lawyer for legal advice, can the government seize it? If so, if I outline a document after hiring a lawyer and then send it for legal advice, can the government seize it?

My understanding, based on what I've just read, is that it depends on whether the document was created in order to obtain legal advice.

If you start the document with "Dear Lawyer, here is my story so far including all the incriminating bits" then that is privileged. However if you write "Dear Joe, hide the money from the robbery in rented garage" and subsequently send a copy to your lawyer then it is not privileged. Both of these are true regardless of when you wrote the document or hired the lawyer.

This is always a tricky problem, especially with a computer which may contain both privileged information and unprivileged evidence of a crime. See https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-ccips/l... starting at page 109 for more on how the police are supposed to deal with this.

Re: USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney not privileged [pdf]

#17

Post by DarkWiiPlayer »

GavinMcG wrote: post #11
DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #9

Uh... 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?

I'll argue that that should work, on some level. Communication with one's attorney is privileged for a good reason, and under your theory the police can interfere with that whenever they imagine the package you've mailed isn't a communication.

> and under your theory the police can interfere with that whenever they imagine the package you've mailed isn't a communication.

And they should; if it turns out, that it is actually protected information, then it couldn't serve as proof anyway.

Otherwise any and all evidenve would be "safe" the moment you give it to your attourney, which would make it rather easy to get away with anything.

Re: USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney not privileged [pdf]

#18

Post by withinboredom »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #5

This 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…

By this logic, the police can wiretap an attorney's office because they don't always talk about "work." Then it's just a matter of some watercooler conversation in the station to get what you really want to know.

Yeah, I know that it's illegal, but corruption doesn't care.

Re: USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney not privileged [pdf]

#19

Post by gowld »

ceejayoz wrote: post #8

Not 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 im…

Some people think the law is something to hack like a video game or Etherium, not a statement of principles and rules that are applied with human judgment.

Re: USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney not privileged [pdf]

#20

Post by [deleted] »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #5

This 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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN