Arrests

Recently, Bradley Manning, the 25-year old private who released over 750,000 pages of classified U.S. military documents and videos to the website WikiLeaks, was found not guilty of aiding the enemy – the most serious of the 21 counts he faced. Specifically, Manning faced possible life imprisonment had he been convicted on this charge. Manning was also found not guilty of unauthorized possession of information relating to national defense.

Manning was, however, found guilty of most of the remaining charges lobbed against him, including six espionage charges, five theft charges, computer fraud, and other military infractions. The judge, Judge Col. Denise Lind, also accepted two guilty pleas Manning had previously entered to two lesser charges. For all the various convictions, Manning faces over 130 years in prison. There is, however, no minimum sentence the judge must impose. Manning will return to court on Wednesday to begin his sentencing hearing.

Considered the largest leak in U.S. history of highly classified government materials, Manning (since 2010) admittedly provided battlefield reports, diplomatic cables, and other confidential materials, including battlefield videos, to the disclosure portal, WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks published much of the material on its website, as did a number of major news sources. Some of the most infamous leaked material includes a video of a 2007 Bagdad airstrike which WikiLeaks dubbed “Collateral Murder.” As a result, Manning was arrested in 2010 and ultimately charged with 22 counts, including espionage and the capital offense of aiding the enemy.

While Manning has awaited trial the past 3 years, the world has furiously debated whether his actions were that of a whistleblower or a traitor to his country. Manning himself has stated that he released the documents and videos because they had concerned him and he wanted to show the public the true costs of war. The prosecution, however, urged that Manning released the material to with an evil intent, knowing it would be seen by terrorists.

In light of the above, Manning’s high-profile conviction will have long-reaching implications in the legal field. Among them are:

1. Precedent setting— the Manning case is a precedent setting one. Manning was convicted under the Espionage Act for his leaks to the media, despite a lack of evidence that he had the intent to harm the United States. Some see this as a scary precedent for the handling of future secret sharers. On the other hand, his acquittal on the count of aiding the enemy serves to narrow the reach of that crime. Traditionally, the capital crime of aiding the enemy has been used to punish those who directly turn over secret material to the enemy, such as occurred in World War II when POW’s provided information to the Japanese. Legal analysts feared that if Manning were convicted on the charge of aiding the enemy for his actions, it would set dangerous new precedent because Manning did not directly place the secret material in the hands of the enemy. By rejecting the charge, Judge Lind appears to express a belief that the definition of the crime of aiding the enemy should not be expanded to encompass Manning’s behavior.

2. Chilling effect on whistleblowers— despite being found innocent of aiding the enemy, Manning still faces over 130 years imprisonment for his actions and has already spent 3 years in confinement awaiting trial, including a harrowing 9 months in solitary confinement. Manning’s arrest and conviction, along with the recent high profile charges against fellow secret sharer Edward Snowden, could potentially have a grave chilling effect on would be whistleblowers, secret sharing websites like WikiLeaks, and even major news media. Continue reading

Living in Chicago, many people have unfortunately been subject to unlawful search and seizure by the Chicago Police Department.

That’s the question two federal appellate judges are pushing the Supreme Court to decide. The U.S Supreme Court held over forty years ago that police who arrest someone have the authority to search all items on their person. However, since this time, items on one’s person have grown to encompass a wide variety of cell phones, including smart phones, and tablets which contain a medley of personal information such as pictures, documents, and other private data, that would once have been found only in one’s home. The lower courts are now struggling to decide how to apply tried and true legal principals to these new technologies, and some are calling for the Supreme Court to step in.

In a 2-1 decision this past May, the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in the case of United States v. Wurie, No. 11-1792 (1st Cir. 2013), that police practice of seizing and searching cell phones at the time of arrest violates the Fourth Amendment.

The facts of the Wurie case are as follows: while performing routine surveillance, Boston police witnessed what appeared to be a drug sale. Police stopped the individual involved, later learned to be Brima Wurie, and found drugs in his pocket. Police also confiscated two cell phones from Wurie at the station. While waiting to book Wurie, one of the cell phones begin ringing. The phone number was identified as “my house” on the cell phone and police officers observed a picture of a woman and a baby set as Wurie’s “wallpaper.” Police searched the phone number and linked it to an address. After some questioning of Wurie, officers drove to the address they had discovered from the phone number and, believing Wurie may have stashed drugs in the home, they entered to “freeze it” while they obtained a warrant. After obtaining a warrant, officers seized large quantities of drugs from the home.

The First Circuit held that allowing the police to search the phone data without a warrant any time they conducted an arrest would create a serious threat to the privacy of countless individuals.

On Monday, the First Circuit rejected the Justice Department’s request that the justice’s rehear the case and, in a rare move, urged the Supreme Court to take up the issue. Chief Judge Sandra Lynch wrote in her statement that while she believed the case me the criteria for a rehearing, she believed the better course of action would be for the Supreme Court to review the case and resolve provide a final resolve on the issue.

Currently, the circuits are split on the constitutionality of cell phones searches incident to arrest. The First Circuit now joins the Ohio and Florida Supreme Courts in requiring a warrant, while another three circuits, including our Seventh Circuit, have held no warrant is required.

We are left to wait and see in the next few months whether the Supreme Court will take up the issue. In the meantime, one thing that can be learned from the Wurie case and others like it: a skilled defense attorney with experience handling Fourth Amendment issues is absolutely critical to your case. Specifically, a seasoned defense attorney can review the facts of your arrest and determine where the police may have violated your Fourth Amendment rights. Further, a veteran defense attorney like Brima Wurie’s is not afraid to challenge existing precedents and champion new legal holdings.

Articles Posted in Arrests

Bradley Manning Found Not Guilty of Aiding the Enemy, Guilty of Lesser Charges

Chicago Arrest News – Is Your Cell Phone Protected from Searches Incident to Arrest?