tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post8035993405803068033..comments2023-12-12T03:19:42.467-05:00Comments on CYB3RCRIM3: Grand Jurors, Technology and Juror MisconductSusan Brennerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-18415524538007462992010-02-01T23:48:02.002-05:002010-02-01T23:48:02.002-05:00The employee was laid off improperly; and this was...The employee was laid off improperly; and this was upheld by a Superior court judge.As a state employee, thee University has to remove individuals who have not obtained permanent status and all consultants. The employee also seems to have followed procedure. Based on court records, the University failed to provide discovery during the Administrative hearing. The employee is accused of possibly tampering with an employee' email. The layoff took place in 2008, and the alledged crime in 2009. In the notes, it appears the University came in and seized the former employee court documents (discovery) as well. Perhaps my paper should focus on vindictive prosecution. I still can't believe we live in a country that allows this can of behavior. It makes me question being a law student.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-73066620495836158182010-02-01T09:05:36.828-05:002010-02-01T09:05:36.828-05:00In deciding whether or not anything improper happe...In deciding whether or not anything improper happened here, I think you'd have to begin by parsing the events into two types: One is the pending civil litigation; the other is the University police's obtaining and executing a search warrant directed at the person who filed that litigation. <br /><br />My point is that one is civil and the other is criminal, which means the propriety of the University police's getting the warrant and executing it will depend on whether they followed applicable 4th Amendment principles (probable cause to believe a crime had been committed and evidence of the crime would be found at the place to be searched plus the other requirements) and any applicable state requirements for warrants, etc.<br /><br />I've no idea what the employee was terminated for, but if it involved conduct that was illegal, then it wouldn't seem odd that the University police obtained and executed the warrant. It might have been better, for appearance's sake, to have had the local police do that, but I don't think that would provide any basis for a motion to suppress (unless, of course, the crime at issue was not within the University police's jurisdiction). <br /><br />There may be other ways to do this, but the only way I can conceivably see of linking the termination to the search warrant is to use a version of the principle of vindictive prosecution. If someone can show that he is being prosecuted because the prosecutor had a grudge against him or was operating from some other motive, that CAN be a basis for challenging the charges. The problem here, of course, is that the person doesn't deny they committed a crime, they just claim improper motives in the prosecution . . . and all that makes for a hard sell to a judge.Susan Brennerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-14041897819250640452010-01-30T17:31:31.446-05:002010-01-30T17:31:31.446-05:00This case seems close to one I am researching for ...This case seems close to one I am researching for a legal course. I learned from a member of my university' police department that a former employee had his computers seized by the University police. What's interesting is the fact that the same former employer had filed wrongful termination against the University. The university was ordered by a Superior Court judge to reverse the termination. Instead of doing the reversal, the University got a search warrant from a magistrate and seizes the guys stuff.<br /><br /><br />The question I would like to examine is the following: How can a university that has pending litigation against them get a search warrant to search the petitioners home ? Is it me or does this sound like an attempt to avoid the judges ruling and steal discovery? <br /><br />Help, law student?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com