Part 2- Crimes and Torts, Chapter 5: Criminal Law and Procedure, Doc 12

Case Summaries and Analyses: Case 1: Garelli Wong & Associates, Inc. (GW) v. William Nichols • • • • Issue: Did William Nichols' alleged use of confidential database information violate §1030(a)(5) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)? Facts: GW and its successor corporation accused Nichols, a former employee, of breaching his employment contract by using proprietary information after joining a competitor. They filed claims under both state common law (breach of contract) and the CFAA. The key CFAA provision, §1030(a)(5), prohibits unauthorized access or actions that impair the integrity or availability of protected computer data. Nichols' Argument: He sought dismissal of the CFAA claim, arguing that even if he accessed and used the database, he didn’t damage or impair its integrity or availability. Court Ruling: The court found that §1030(a)(5) applies to acts causing actual damage to data or systems. Since Nichols merely used the information without corrupting or impairing the database, the court likely ruled in his favor, dismissing the CFAA claim. However, this dismissal does not preclude remedies under the breach of contract claim in state law. Case 2: Missouri v. Seibert • • • Issue: Were Seibert’s post-Miranda statements admissible, given the deliberate use of a "question-first" interrogation tactic? Facts: Seibert was interrogated without Miranda warnings and made incriminating statements. After a break, officers administered Miranda warnings, obtained a waiver, and elicited the same information. The trial court admitted postMiranda statements. Missouri's Supreme Court reversed, ruling that this tactic undermined Miranda protections. Supreme Court Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court held that Seibert’s postMiranda statements should have been suppressed. The deliberate "twostep" strategy was designed to circumvent Miranda protections, rendering the post-warning statements inadmissible. The Court emphasized that warnings must not only be given but must effectively ensure an individual’s constitutional rights are preserved. Case 3: Florida v. Powell • • • Issue: Did the Tampa police adequately inform Powell of his right to counsel during interrogation under Miranda? Facts: After arresting Powell, officers provided a Consent and Release Form that listed his rights, including the right to consult an attorney before questioning. Powell argued this form failed to make clear his right to have counsel present during questioning. Lower Florida courts sided with Powell, suppressing his statements. Supreme Court Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, finding the warnings sufficient. The form, while not perfect, reasonably conveyed Powell’s right to an attorney during questioning, meeting Miranda’s requirements. His inculpatory statements were admissible. Wire Fraud and the Canadian Government Case (Pasquantino v. U.S.) • • • Issue: Does a scheme to defraud a foreign government of tax revenue via U.S. interstate wires violate the federal wire fraud statute? Facts: Defendants used U.S. telecommunications to facilitate a scheme to avoid Canadian liquor import taxes. Supreme Court Decision: In Pasquantino v. United States (2005), the Court ruled that depriving the Canadian government of tax revenue through fraudulent use of U.S. wires constitutes wire fraud. The wire fraud statute applies to schemes targeting both private and governmental entities, provided interstate wire communication is involved. These cases illustrate the nuanced application of federal statutes, balancing individual rights, and protections under both criminal and civil law.