The Grateful Dead were succinct about it: “Got a tip they’re gonna kick the door in again/I’d like to get some sleep before I travel/But if you got a warrant, I guess you’re gonna come in” (from “Truckin”) (1970).
Here is a piece about subpoenas and search warrants for risk managers. Short and free. Videos included. Also free. No Jerry Garcia, though:
On May 2, Jack Sharman spoke at the Spring Meeting of the Alabama Society for Healthcare Risk Management. As a member of the Firm’s White-Collar Criminal Defense and Corporate Investigations practice, Jack has represented physicians, physician-practices, nurses and other healthcare providers in criminal, civil and administrative investigations. Jack spoke on the background landscape of healthcare fraud today and, in particular, on how to prepare for and handle subpoenas and search warrants.
Here is a brief (140 seconds) Lightfoot 140 talk on search warrants and a longer CLE version.
And, if you have not heard it in a while, here’s the song.
Suit looks tight.
Here’s the ABA White-Collar Crime Committee Winter Spring 2014 Newsletter.
Good articles on:
- INTERNATIONAL WHITE COLLAR CRIME AND DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENTS
- CORPORATE COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN ITALY:
ARE THEY THE SAME?
- GIVE ME BACK MY BOOKS AND RECORDS: APPLICATION OF RULE 41(G) IN RESPONSE TO FEDERAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANTS
- HOT ISSUES IN CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURES
- THE BOARD’S ROLE IN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMPLIANCE: GUARDIAN AND GUIDE
- SEC ARGUES FOR BROAD CONSTRUCTION OF DODD-FRANK ACT
WHISTLEBLOWER ANTI-RETALIATION PROVISION
- DOES THE GREEN LIGHT MEAN GO?: WILL SEC’S NEW RULES FOR SMALL OFFERINGS INCREASE STATE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS?
- NEW PROPOSED RULES INCREASE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS’
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PREVENTING HUMAN TRAFFICKING
We have written on several of these issues, as well, including deferred prosecution agreements.
The Network of Trial Law Firms is an excellent CLE vehicle. Here’s a Sharman White Collar Panel Video of a Network panel about white-collar issues for civil lawyers — me, Jackie Arango of Akerman Senterfit (Miami), Joel Neckers of Wheeler Trigg (Denver) and Gerry Leone of Noxon Peabody (Boston). Here’s the blurb from the Network program:
No one thinks of themselves, their employees or their company as “criminals.” On the other hand, Walter White was once just a chemistry teacher. The lines between what are business-crime problems and what are traditional corporate civil issues — compliance, due diligence, regulatory recordkeeping and permitting, whistleblowers, confidentiality, privilege and indemnification — have become blurred. Listen to an experienced panel highlight the most important events and insights from 2013 and what to expect in 2014.
I know, I know. The video is a bit long to just sit and watch unless you’ve previously gone to the “Cocktails” archive of this blog, but I find the most curious point to arrive at minute 25:22, where I play for the crowd a 140-second video of myself talking about search warrants. A video within video. They loved it.
Here’s a story (via @nytimes) about how the border is a back door for device searches.
There is, of course, a “border exception” to the Fourth Amendment, a constitutional doctrine that came of age when national physical borders were also, usually, information-borders as well. Although the discussion in the article takes place in the national-security context, it’s worth American companies giving more careful thought to how they address the way their executives and employees work and travel. Employees usually love using their own devices and storing company data in ways that are readily accessible to and productive for them.
At the border, though, all that corporate data is free game.
As the article notes:
TECS is a computer system used to screen travelers at the border, and includes records from law enforcement, immigration and antiterrorism databases. A report from the Department of Homeland Security about border searches of electronic devices says a traveler may be searched “because he is the subject of, or person-of-interest-in, an ongoing law enforcement investigation and was flagged by a law enforcement ‘lookout’ ” in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement computer system.
For now, the law remains murky about any limits on intrusive border inspections, including how long travelers can be detained, whether they are required to provide passwords for their devices . . . and whether they must answer any question an agent asks. Responses may be recorded in a traveler’s TECS file and shared with other government agencies.
Detention is an inconvenience. To answer (or not answer) an agent’s question is another matter entirely, one that implicates both the company’s legal exposure and the individual’s Fifth Amendment rights.
If you find yourself in a lawsuit or prosecution based on a seizure at the border, it’s worth asking for this document from ICE: