
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
What’s the difference between a campaign contribution and a bribe? More than the Sixth Circuit seemed to think. Or so argues Paul Sherman of IJ about a recent appeal of a bribery prosecution of a Cincinnati city councilmember. The councilmember was speaking to a developer and asking for a contribution. Unknown to him, the developer was working with the FBI and wearing a wire. They had some conversations about contributions and approving projects that were very confusing and also raised important First Amendment concerns. The court split 2-1 on whether his conviction was OK with three interesting opinions. Then we move on from bribery to iPhone use. By cops. Who use an iPhone to look into a car’s window. Was that a search? IJ’s Bobbi Taylor discusses a Second Circuit case that said it was not and neither was the touching of the car a seizure. It’s an interesting Fourth Amendment case where the court applies a famous case of Justice Scalia’s about searches and modern technology. The “reasonable expectation of privacy” test comes up as does the complete mess that the Fourth Amendment finds itself in these days.
Click here for transcript.
U.S. v. Sittenfeld
U.S. v. Poller
Kyllo v. U.S.
Herculaneum scrolls
Plunkitt of Tammany Hall
4.6
171171 ratings
What’s the difference between a campaign contribution and a bribe? More than the Sixth Circuit seemed to think. Or so argues Paul Sherman of IJ about a recent appeal of a bribery prosecution of a Cincinnati city councilmember. The councilmember was speaking to a developer and asking for a contribution. Unknown to him, the developer was working with the FBI and wearing a wire. They had some conversations about contributions and approving projects that were very confusing and also raised important First Amendment concerns. The court split 2-1 on whether his conviction was OK with three interesting opinions. Then we move on from bribery to iPhone use. By cops. Who use an iPhone to look into a car’s window. Was that a search? IJ’s Bobbi Taylor discusses a Second Circuit case that said it was not and neither was the touching of the car a seizure. It’s an interesting Fourth Amendment case where the court applies a famous case of Justice Scalia’s about searches and modern technology. The “reasonable expectation of privacy” test comes up as does the complete mess that the Fourth Amendment finds itself in these days.
Click here for transcript.
U.S. v. Sittenfeld
U.S. v. Poller
Kyllo v. U.S.
Herculaneum scrolls
Plunkitt of Tammany Hall
1,105 Listeners
967 Listeners
6,268 Listeners
691 Listeners
649 Listeners
153 Listeners
1,502 Listeners
6,507 Listeners
309 Listeners
42 Listeners
3,785 Listeners
3,222 Listeners
371 Listeners
669 Listeners
1 Listeners