Case of the Week: Cell Site Data

This week the Fifth Circuit of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas handed down an important ruling on the Fourth Amendment. The case in question was a dispute between federal law enforcement and a cell phone service provider. Law enforcement had requested the phone records and service information of a particular cell phone from the phone provider pursuant to the Stored Communications Act but the provider refused to provide the records. The federal magistrate who reviewed the case ruled that the phone provider must give law enforcement the subscriber data but did not compel them to to produce cell site data, ruling that "compelled warrant less disclosure of cell site data violates the Fourth Amendment" (IN RE: APPLICATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR HISTORICAL CELL SITE DATA. United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. 30 July 2013.)

Case of the Week: People v Oliveras

The case of People v. Oliveras is a ruling that may have an effect on the definition of what constitutes "ineffective assistance of counsel". According to the present law, ineffective assistance of counsel occurs when a convicted client proves that their attorney was negligent in a way that badly impacted the case, and therefore the client's constitutional right to counsel has been violated (as per the Sixth Amendment). In People v Oliveras, the defendant's mental health was in question, and his lawyer attempted to argue that his client's confessions to the police were not completely voluntary, in part because of his questionable mental health. However, the attorney made a fundamental misstep that ultimately impacted the case: he never subpoenaed his client's psychiatric records.