Oral arguments in Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank will begin

The justices are set to review securities law as they hear arguments in a significant case linked to the 2015 data breach involving Cambridge Analytica and Facebook.

The tech giant’s effort to fend off federal securities fraud lawsuits in Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank could narrow the opportunities for private investors to hold companies accountable under federal laws that regulate corporate misconduct.

In 2016, the British political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica accessed and exploited the data of over 30 million Facebook users in relation to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

In light of Facebook’s awareness of the data breach and before the public disclosure of Cambridge’s significant data practices, the company proactively submitted a securities filing to its investors that detailed the potential risks stemming from a security breach as well as the likely adverse effects on Facebook’s operations and stock performance.

That disclosure did not reveal that, as Facebook was aware, a large breach of that sort already had occurred.

Read more here at SCOTUS Blog

Defend Your Future with Michigan’s Top Criminal Defense Attorney

Your rights and freedom are too important to leave to chance.

Facing Criminal Charges?

When you’re caught in the turmoil of criminal charges, every moment counts. The anxiety of potential jail time, hefty fines, and a tarnished reputation can be overwhelming. You may feel lost and unsure about where to turn for help.

The Consequences of Inaction

The stakes are high. A conviction can lead to long-lasting repercussions—affecting your job, relationships, and even your future opportunities. Without a strong defense, you risk losing everything you’ve worked hard for. Don’t let fear dictate your fate.

The Fourth Amendment was established to protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, yet there are exceptions.

In Michigan, understanding the concepts of search and seizure, particularly regarding consent and plain view, is crucial for both law enforcement and citizens.

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, but there are specific circumstances under which law enforcement can legally conduct a search without a warrant.

Search and Seizure Basics

Search and seizure refers to the process by which police officers can investigate a person’s property or belongings to find evidence of a crime.

Under the Fourth Amendment, any search must typically be supported by probable cause and conducted with a warrant.

However, two significant exceptions to this rule are consent searches and plain view seizures.

Consent Searches

Consent occurs when an individual voluntarily agrees to allow law enforcement officers to conduct a search. It is essential that this consent is given freely without coercion or intimidation.

In Michigan, if someone consents to a search of their home or vehicle, anything discovered during that search can be used as evidence in court.

This means if you invite police into your home and they find illegal substances or weapons during their investigation, that evidence can lead to criminal charges against you.

You might as well invite the devil in.

Plain View Doctrine

On the other hand, the plain view doctrine allows officers to seize evidence without a warrant if it is clearly visible while they are in a lawful position.

For example, if police are conducting an investigation outside your house for unrelated reasons (such as responding to noise complaints) and they see illegal items through an open window or door, they can legally seize those items without needing your permission.

The key difference here lies in how the police come across the evidence:

Consent requires permission from the individual being searched while plain view relies on what officers observe from their legal vantage point.

So keep your shades closed and your doors locked. You do not have to answer the door when the police or anybody come knocking.

Understanding these concepts not only empowers individuals regarding their rights but also highlights how crucial it is for law enforcement agencies to operate within legal boundaries when conducting searches. 

Knowing your rights when it comes to search and seizure—especially concerning consent versus plain view—can make all the difference in protecting yourself legally in Michigan.

For more details about the laws follow these links

• [MCL 780.653]
• [MCL 750.552]
• [MCL 780.651]
• [MCL 750.239]

Case Example: Search and Seizure – Consent – Plain view

Defendant moved to suppress coffee filters seized from a detached garage suspected of being the site of a methamphetamine manufacturing operation, that motion should have been allowed because the officers lacked consent to search and did not lawfully seize the coffee filters.

“In 2015, police officers arrested defendant, Michael Brian McJunkin, after responding to reported suspicious activity at a house in Battle Creek. When the police arrived, they noticed the smell of ammonia permeating from a detached garage and suspected methamphetamine (meth) manufacturing. The officers later discovered an active ‘one-pot’ meth laboratory and coffee filters containing ground up pseudoephedrine, a primary component in meth manufacturing. … Because we hold that the officers lacked consent to search and did not lawfully seize the coffee filters, we reverse.

“The parties agree that the officers did not have a warrant to search Wightman’s garage or the Explorer. McJunkin challenges the trial court’s conclusion that the search and seizure was legally justified under the consent and plain-view exceptions to the warrant requirement.

“We hold that the trial court clearly erred by ruling that Wightman freely and unequivocally consented to the search of his garage because the ruling was based on factual findings that were not supported by the evidence.

“Based on these errors, we conclude that the totality of the circumstances did not support a finding that the officers had consent to search the garage. As discussed, to establish the consent exception to the warrant requirement, evidence must show that the officers received consent that ‘is unequivocal, specific, and freely and intelligently given.’ … The evidentiary hearing disclosed no consent to search the garage that meets any of those criteria and, therefore, we reverse the trial court’s decision.

“For these reasons, the trial court erred by ruling that the consent and plain-view exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirements applied to the officers’ seizure of evidence from McJunkin’s vehicle.”

Read the court opinion (PDF).

Read the dissent (PDF).

It’s Election Time….

Get out there and vote because someone’s vote just got cancelled.

• Chinese Student Accused Of Voting Illegally — And His Vote Will Reportedly Count
• Opinion: A noncitizen voted in Michigan.
• A secured and safe vote thanks to new laws in Michigan

Defend Your Future with Michigan’s Top Criminal Defense Attorney

Your rights and freedom are too important to leave to chance.

Facing Criminal Charges?

When you’re caught in the turmoil of criminal charges, every moment counts. The anxiety of potential jail time, hefty fines, and a tarnished reputation can be overwhelming. You may feel lost and unsure about where to turn for help.

The Consequences of Inaction

The stakes are high. A conviction can lead to long-lasting repercussions—affecting your job, relationships, and even your future opportunities. Without a strong defense, you risk losing everything you’ve worked hard for. Don’t let fear dictate your fate.

Expert Legal Representation

Our Michigan Top Criminal Defense Attorney is here to provide the expertise and support you need during this challenging time. With years of experience in navigating the complexities of criminal law, we craft personalized defense strategies tailored specifically for your case.

Why Choose Us?

Proven Track Record: Our attorney has successfully defended countless clients against various charges, earning a reputation for excellence in the courtroom.

Personalized Approach: We understand that every case is unique; we take the time to listen and build a defense strategy that fits your specific situation.

Your Advocate: We will fight tirelessly on your behalf, ensuring that your rights are protected every step of the way.

Your Freedom Is Our Priority

A Case Summary: People v. Blake Anthony-William Barton

On October 11, 2024, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a decision in the case People of the State of Michigan v. Blake Anthony-William Barton.

The case involved a drunk driving  investigation following a car accident in Britton, Michigan.

Case: Lenawee Circuit Court LC No. 23-021272-FH

Background

The incident occurred on September 10, 2022, at approximately 2:00 a.m.  Officer David Low of the Raisin Township Police Department responded to a car accident at the intersection of Sutton Road and Ridge Highway. He found a vehicle in a wooded area off the roadway, with the driver, later identified as Barton, partially pinned underneath the car.

Barton admitted to consuming alcohol earlier in the night and claimed he was on his way to a rodeo. However, it was already 2:16 a.m., well past the time any rodeo would have ended.

Medical Treatment and Blood Draw

Barton was transported to ProMedica Toledo Hospital in Toledo, Ohio, for treatment. While there, medical staff drew his blood for medical purposes, not under arrest.

Two days later, the prosecutor’s office requested the chemical analysis of Barton’s blood from the hospital.

The prosecutor’s office sent a letter to Toledo Hospital requesting that it provide Barton’s chemical analysis from September 10.

The Prosecuting Attorney for Lenawee County signed the letter. Specifically, he requested:

Please provide to the Raisin Township Police Department the complete chemical analysis of the above-named subject that was performed on or about September 10, 2022.

This request is submitted in accordance with Ohio Revised Code, 2317.02, which is attached for your reference.

This is an open and pending investigation. Please mail the records to the Raisin Township Police Department . . . (emphasis omitted).

The letter did not attach a copy of Ohio Rev Code 2317.02 as it stated.

Instead, the prosecutor’s office provided a Michigan Attorney General opinion detailing the enforceability of MCL 257.625a(6)(e) prior to a person’s arrest.

In response, Toledo Hospital sent the chemical analysis results to the police department. The chemical analysis disclosed that Barton’s blood and urine samples, which indicated a blood alcohol level of 0.23 and the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

Legal Proceedings

The Lenawee Circuit Court initially granted Barton’s motion to suppress the blood evidence due to a perceived technical  noncompliance with Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) 257.625a(6)(e).

 (e) If, after an accident, the driver of a vehicle involved in the accident is transported to a medical facility and a sample of the driver’s blood is withdrawn at that time for medical treatment, the results of a chemical analysis of that sample are admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding to show the amount of alcohol or presence of a controlled substance or other intoxicating substance in the person’s blood at the time alleged, regardless of whether the person had been offered or had refused a chemical test. The medical facility or person performing the chemical analysis shall disclose the results of the analysis to a prosecuting attorney who requests the results for use in a criminal prosecution as provided in this subdivision. A medical facility or person disclosing information in compliance with this subsection is not civilly or criminally liable for making the disclosure.

However, the prosecution later submitted evidence showing that the court’s decision relied on a factual error.

Consequently, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s decision and remanded the case.

This goes to show you can still fight a case even when you think all is lost.

If you are interested in more in depth detail read the Opinion here.

COA 369926 PEOPLE OF MI V BLAKE ANTHONY-WILLIAM BARTON Opinion – Per Curiam – Unpublished 10/11/2024 (michbar.org)