Takes a woman to slam “overseizure” of those damn emails

In case you, like I, were wondering how the FBI was permitted to seize Huma Abedin’s and Anthony Weiner’s internal communications, here’s an answer: it’s problematic.

I’m going to point out that a woman lawyer, Maranda Fritz, is the one who has quickly published an article in the New York Law Journal (as usual, I can’t get the entire article, but am able to give you the abstract) about the propriety of this massive seizure.

The Huma Abedin Emails: Herein Lies the Danger of Overseizure

Maranda Fritz, New York Law Journal

Maranda Fritz, of Thompson Hine, analyzes the the law surrounding government ‘overseizure’ of data in investigations involving electronic data in light of the government’s investigation into emails linked to Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s aide. She points out that any warrant that would have been sought in the Weiner investigation would have allowed for seizure of electronic files relating to him—not the communications of his wife. The clear danger presented by this Anthony Weiner seizure, and the seizures in many cases, is that the consideration that was extended to the government—to allow the initial overseizure for the purpose of complying with the warrant—is being used by the government to seize and retain any confidential, personal or even intimate communications that happen to reside on the seized computer.

I bolded what I saw as the significant sentences.

If you want to remind yourself of the Fourth Amendment, here it is, courtesy Cornell U Law School. 

This entry was posted in K. Discovery, Law, suits and order, Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.