Wednesday, July 12, 2006

US v. Adjani, No. 05-50092 (7-11-06). This is an extortion case involving the supposed stealing of a computer database and then blackmail. The co-conspirators weren't very smart, returning from Zurich for a meeting that lead to their arrest. In a suppression motion, the codefendants argued that e-mail exchanges between them must be suppressed because of lack of probable cause, and then for an overbroad search, The district court suppressed, but on appeal, the 9th reversed. the 9th (Fisher) found that the warrant, for computers, meet probable cause given the circumstances and the nature of the threat. Moreover, the warrant was directed at the computers on the premises (a home in Venice, Ca) and the fact that the computer present may have been owned by the codefendant. and not so identified, did not invalidate the search. the computer was still there and fell within the parameters.

Roy v. Lambert, No. 04-35514 (7-12-06). The 9th considers whether equitable tolling should allow a late filing of a habeas petition under AEDPA. The petitioners are Oregon state prisoners who had the misfortune of being transferred out of state to a private prison facility in Florence, Arizona (CCA). They allege that the woeful condition of the law library, the lack of any assistance for Oregon state law, and the needs they have because the are pro se should equitably toll AEDPA. The 9th found they made a sufficient showing for a hearing, noting that the petitioners had filed as soon as they were transferred back to Oregon, had access to materials, and had been requesting such access.


Post a Comment

<< Home