For Attorney/Lawyer Types

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I'm puzzled by the deputy's move from the side of the courtroom to the position directly behind the defense attorney. What prompted him to move to a position where he could "glaze over" (sic) the papers on the table? Was something said in court like, "I have a letter that says some money is going to be stolen...?"

If there was no cue from the defense attorney's speech, then it appears the deputy had prior knowledge that the letter was in that file - and it's obvious that the letter was not on top of the file, but buried under several other pages.

He could have seen it while inspecting the attorney's brief case upon entry and then made his move to get the letter while she was distracted speaking to the judge. Either way, what a boob! If there was "evidence" that a crime was truly about to be committed and he even "accidentally" had become aware of it, he must go directly to the judge.

Not sure how they do it in Arizona but, in DC I have NEVER had a deputy look in my brief case. They scan it in an airport like security line when I enter the courthouse. In some areas around here attorneys are not even required to go through the security line. A Deputy NEVER has the right to read papers in an attorney's files.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Not sure how they do it in Arizona but, in DC I have NEVER had a deputy look in my brief case. The scan it in an airport like security line when I enter the courthouse. In some areas around here attorneys are not even required to go through the security line. A Deputy NEVER has the right to read papers in an attorney's files.

Amen.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I don't really know what happened with the conversation in the court room because it was hard to hear on these built in speakers on my work computer. However, that deputy should be charged with a crime and fired. Period. While he has the right to check for weapons he NEVER has the right to search in terms of what is written on there. Anything that the attorney has prepared is work product and privileged even if it is a confession that deputy was clearly out of line, he has no right whatsoever to take things out of her file, or even browse it. What he did was compromise the trial (not sure what stage they were in because I couldn't follow the conversation). The proper thing for the judge to do now is dismiss the case.

What a clown.

Indeed... I am as amazed at the nonchalance of the judge as I am at the actions of the deputy.

[missourimary]

Why wouldn't the deputy need a search warrant to compromise the attorney's privacy this way? He thought, according to the article, that the attorney may have been compromised by the mafia... well, I have neighbors' houses that are compromised by illegal drugs and prostitution, but the police say they can't get a search warrant because they don't have evidence (ie they haven't caught them dealing with enough documentation). Yet this deputy can just waltz up to her desk in a courtroom and pull papers out of a closed file because he thinks he saw some words together in a sentence, and the judge is having trouble deciding if he could or couldn't take that paper without her knowledge or consent in a courtroom???????

Baron, is unreasonable search and seizure acceptable in an American court of law? Wouldn't this be termed as such?

Why wasn't the judge, who obviously watched her deputy's actions, faulted for anything, or at least questioned?

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by missourimary

Why wouldn't the deputy need a search warrant to compromise the attorney's privacy this way? He thought, according to the article, that the attorney may have been compromised by the mafia... well, I have neighbors' houses that are compromised by illegal drugs and prostitution, but the police say they can't get a search warrant because they don't have evidence (ie they haven't caught them dealing with enough documentation). Yet this deputy can just waltz up to her desk in a courtroom and pull papers out of a closed file because he thinks he saw some words together in a sentence, and the judge is having trouble deciding if he could or couldn't take that paper without her knowledge or consent in a courtroom???????

Baron, is unreasonable search and seizure acceptable in an American court of law? Wouldn't this be termed as such?

Why wasn't the judge, who obviously watched her deputy's actions, faulted for anything, or at least questioned?

Indeed...

[Kae]

This happens a lot more than we realize. Not this specific incidence per say, but injustice. Another instance for us to serve our country on jury duty (which most people detest). Not only serving but understanding the laws for that particular case to best help our community.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by missourimary

Why wouldn't the deputy need a search warrant to compromise the attorney's privacy this way? He thought, according to the article, that the attorney may have been compromised by the mafia... well, I have neighbors' houses that are compromised by illegal drugs and prostitution, but the police say they can't get a search warrant because they don't have evidence (ie they haven't caught them dealing with enough documentation). Yet this deputy can just waltz up to her desk in a courtroom and pull papers out of a closed file because he thinks he saw some words together in a sentence, and the judge is having trouble deciding if he could or couldn't take that paper without her knowledge or consent in a courtroom???????

Baron, is unreasonable search and seizure acceptable in an American court of law? Wouldn't this be termed as such?

Why wasn't the judge, who obviously watched her deputy's actions, faulted for anything, or at least questioned?

Honestly, I am not sure. There is certainly out of bounds but not being an expert in the area of search and seizure law I really don't know how it will play out.

That deputy's job doesn't extend to busting up the mafia, what a lame attempt, he is there for the physical protection of the court. he can't claim, like he tried, that it was in plain sight, He moved stuff to see it. If he entered someone's house by invitation and did that it would be an unreasonable search. They can't turn a radio over and look at the serial number without a search warrant.

His action were way out of bounds.