978-1259638855 Chapter 5 Part 3

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

Chapter 05 – Criminal Law and Procedure

5-19

manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.

punished for breaching the statutory duty to seek out, correct, and prevent

were intimately involved in their day–to–day operations. Note that the Court’s

standard exposes a wide range of corporate employees to potential liability: every

officer in the chain of command governing the part of the business producing a

regulatory violation resulting in death of miner despite absence of fault on part of

mine owners and despite fact that accident resulted from miner‘s negligent

violation of foreman’s orders).

h. Discuss the various proposals aimed at making the criminal law operate more

violations of the law.” (See p. 165.)

i. Explore with students the whistleblowing-related ethical issues noted in the Ethics in

Action box on p. 165.

E. Important White-Collar Crimes

collar crimes.

2. Discuss the purposes of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was enacted in response to

3. Highlight mail and wire fraud, similar offenses dealing with financial fraud, and such

other offenses as insider trading. You might keep the latter discussion fairly general,

extortion.

a. United States v. Anderson (p. 166): The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds

commit wire fraud.

Points for Discussion: The case was included in the 16th edition to illustrate the

elements of mail and wire fraud and how courts apply them. Ask students what the

Chapter 05 – Criminal Law and Procedure

5-20

fit the elements of the crime. Also, note the court’s discussion of the conspiracy count

and of the role that the number of victims may play in the criminal penalty.

4. Note the attempts by Congress to deal the problem of bribery. The most notable of these

5. Discuss the RICO statute’s criminal and civil aspects. Note the controversy surrounding

the reach of RICO, which may be applied in many settings that bear little resemblance to

organized crime in the conventional sense.

a. In examining the ways in which RICO may be violated, stress the importance of

the “enterprise” and “pattern of racketeering activity” elements. (The Boyle case,

Boyle v. United States (p. 171): The U.S. Supreme Court holds that for RICO

purposes, an “enterprise” need not have a formal organizational structure,

Points for Discussion: The Court interprets “enterprise” broadly—far more

broadly than the defendants in this case would have liked. Why? (The statutory

definition is broad. Although it mentions corporations, partnerships, and the like

sometimes also pertain to another key element of a RICO violation. Which one?

(The pattern of racketeering activity element.)

b. You may wish to mention that over half of the states have adopted “baby RICO”

under state law.

c. Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170 (1993) may also be worth noting. Also

Reves did not amount to the more sweeping reform that many of RICO’s critics

firm would not by itself constitute participation in management or operation.

Prior to Reves, accounting firms and other outside professionals had become

frequent targets of RICO litigation along with the firms for which they performed

work.

d. In discussing civil RICO actions, note the treble damages prospect, but stress

Chapter 05 – Criminal Law and Procedure

5-21

manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.

F. Computer Crime

1. Note how existing criminal statutes sometimes are ineffective to deal with the special

Whether this conclusion is reached depends on how narrowly or broadly the court is

willing to construe the statutory language.

2. Note the trend at both the state and federal levels to amend existing statutes or enact new

Cyberlaw box case and Problem #9 reveal.

IV. RECOMMENDED REFERENCES:

the corporate context.

C. JAMES Q. WILSON, THINKING ABOUT CRIME. Another modern classic on the criminal

sanction in general.

D. WAYNE R. LAFAVE, CRIMINAL LAW and CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Comprehensive resources

concerning many of the specifics of criminal law and procedure.

(1999).

F. Michael B. Metzger, Organizations and the Law, 25 AM. BUS. L.J. 407 (1987).

G. Jonathan R. Macey, Agency Theory and the Criminal Liability of Organizations, 71 BOSTON

U.L. REV. 315 (1991).

H. Cynthia E. Carrasco & Michael K. Dupee, Corporate Criminal Liability, 36 AM. CRIM. L.

REV. 445 (1999).

VAND. L. REV. 1343 (1999).

J. Lisa P. Bailey, Rebecca A. Sasser, Matthew M. Sikes, & Jae Yang, Racketeer Influenced and

Corrupt Organizations, 36 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 1035 (1999).

K. Michael Hatcher, Jay McDannell, & Stacy Ostfeld, Computer Crimes, 36 AM. CRIM. L. REV.

397 (1999).

V. ANSWERS TO PROBLEM CASES:

Chapter 05 – Criminal Law and Procedure

5-22

manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.

the commission of the felony (giving false statements to customs officials) even though the

explosives were not otherwise involved with that felony and did not facilitate its commission.

United States v. Ressam, 553 U.S. 272 (2008).

2. The U.S Supreme Court ruled that the traffic stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment

Supreme Court’s decision directly addressed only whether the reasonable suspicion standard

3. No. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit noted that the Fifth Amendment

privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to legal entities such as corporations.

documents belonging to the corporation thus could not be seen as self-incrimination for Fifth

Amendment purposes. The court also reasoned that even if the documents had belonged to

not have a testimonial character either. In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated October 22, 1991,

and November 1, 1991, 959 F.2d 1158 (2d Cir. 1992).

4. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred when

the U.S. Customs Service agent removed shredded documents from a garbage bag found

court relied on California v. Greenwood, in which no Fourth Amendment violation occurred

when law enforcement officers searched a garbage can that had placed at the curb for pick-up

1091 (11th Cir. 1995).

5. The Supreme Court held that the term “proceeds,” as used in the federal money-laundering

statute, refers to profits of an unlawful activity rather to receipts taken in by the defendant or

to many situations in which an underlying offense for which Congress contemplated a

sentence of a smaller number of years would effectively become a money-laundering offense

Chapter 05 – Criminal Law and Procedure

5-23

manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.

That rule is a tie-goes-to-the-defendant approach in which an ambiguous term in a criminal

statute is interpreted in a manner favorable to the defendant. United States v. Santos, 553 U.S.

507 (2008).

6. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the search of the automobile violated the Fourth

Amendment. Warrantless searches of the arrestee incident to an arrest have long been held

U.S. 454 (1981), four persons occupied the car in question and the scene of the arrest had not

been completely secured—meaning that it was conceivable a detained person could get access

Accordingly, the Court held that “[p]olice may [conduct a warrantless] search [of] a vehicle

incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the

7. The Supreme Court held that in order to state a valid civil RICO claim, the plaintiff must be

able to establish a direct causation link between the RICO violation and the harm experienced

natural and logical consequence of National’s tax return shenanigans, and thus did not

proximately result from National’s illegal actions. Moreover, the direct victim was the State of

Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 547 U.S. 451 (2006).

8. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, a limited segment of the tape’s audio portion—the

segment dealing with the question about the date of Muniz’s sixth birthday—should have been

Miranda concerns and that the segments of the tape dealing with those questions amounted to

admissible evidence. This was so even though Muniz stumbled over some of his responses to

because of Muniz’s nontestimonial delivery but also—and, for Fifth Amendment and Miranda

purposes, critically—because the content of the answer would support an inference that

U.S. 582 (1990).

9. No. The court observed that the meaning of §§ 1037(a)(3) and (a)(4) could be discerned more

clearly by reviewing a later subsection, § 1037(d)(2). In that subsection, Congress stated:

Chapter 05 – Criminal Law and Procedure

5-24

manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.

For purposes of [§§ 1037(a)(3) and (a)(4),] header information or registration information

is materially falsified if it is altered or concealed in a manner that would impair the ability

of a recipient of the message, an Internet access service processing the message on behalf

of a recipient, a person alleging a violation of this section, or a law enforcement agency to

identify, locate, or respond to a person who initiated the electronic mail message or to

investigate the alleged violation.

The court noted that even if an email address does not necessarily identify the sender, “it does

tell a recipient where to send replies to the sender, much in the same way a return address on

spam. The relevant statutory sections thus survived the defendants’ vagueness challenge.

United States v. Twombly, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1019 (S.D. Cal. 2007).

10. No. The U.S. Supreme Court held that law enforcement officers violated the Fourth

Amendment when they used a thermal imaging device to detect heat emanating from Kyllo’s

consideration of the thermal imaging results (an unlikely prospect to be addressed on remand),

the marijuana discovered in the warrant-related search would have to be excluded from

evidence. The Court reasoned that the use of the thermal imaging device was different from

“plain view” observations of the exterior of a home—observations held not to amount to a

would have produced, and that because a physical intrusion would clearly be a search, so

should the use of thermal imaging. In addition, the Court expressed concern that as

technology improves, there will be more and more ways in which the government can discover

what is s going on in a private place without having to make a physical entry into that place.

(2001).

11. No, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded. Park occupied a position of responsibility and

and prevent violations that related to his position. United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975).

12. Affirming the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court disapproved

of what had become a fairly commonly employed police tactic: question a suspect in custody

Chapter 05 – Criminal Law and Procedure

5-25

manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.

unconstitutional and hence inadmissible); then give the Miranda warnings and resume

questioning by taking the suspect over the previously discussed territory; and elicit a new

confession. The Court held that such a tactic undermined the constitutionally required

Miranda warnings—meaning that not only the initial confession, but also the later confession,

must be excluded from evidence. The Court reasoned that if a suspect knows he has already

condemned. Missouri v. Siebert was a plurality decision in which four justices (Souter, who

authored the opinion, plus Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer) took a hard line against this law

express statement by the police that the suspect’s earlier statement could not be used again

him. Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004).

13. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the warrantless entry of the apartment did not violate HK’s

S. Ct. 1849 (2011).

14. No, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled. Because WF was no longer on the premises when the

Fernandez v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1126 (2014).