Court rules drug tests improperly seized

[treant985]

Re: Court rules drug tests improperly seized

It'd be like seizing 10 people's medical records in one file cabinet, then having 50 other file cabinets "in plain sight" in the same office and deciding to take all those people's records, too. If you analogize this to computer records, then everything on a computer could be considered plain sight.

Well, maybe a better example would be if a doctor's office kept ALL of their patients' records in ONE huge manilla folder, yet the warrant is only for a few of the patients' records. To get the 10 you need, you have to go through the other 100 you don't.

[cjclong]

Re: Court rules drug tests improperly seized

Treant, I believe that the appeal, if there was one, would be by the Federal prosecutors and not MLB since the opinion by the California appeals court went against the Government and upheld the position taken by the players union that the tests for which were not named in the warrant should not have been seized.

[treant985]

Re: Court rules drug tests improperly seized

Treant, I believe that the appeal, if there was one, would be by the Federal prosecutors and not MLB since the opinion by the California appeals court went against the Government and upheld the position taken by the players union that the tests for which were not named in the warrant should not have been seized.

yea, you're right. I switched the two parties. MLBPA won, fed prosecutors lost.

[rj_lucas]

Re: Court rules drug tests improperly seized

The g'ment argued that they went in for the 10 results for which they had a warrant and that the other results were in "plain sight," so they didn't need a warrant for them. It's a clever argument--but ultimately it had to fail, especially when it comes to computer records like in this case.

Federal prosecutors overstepping their authority? Wow, next thing you know, we'll be hearing about something equally hard to believe, like, say, the Earth is round

Rick
rickjlucas@gmail.com

[treant985]

Re: Court rules drug tests improperly seized

Federal prosecutors overstepping their authority? Wow, next thing you know, we'll be hearing about something equally hard to believe, like, say, the Earth is round

Rick
rickjlucas@gmail.com

I sat down and read the opinion (had a road trip today), and it really was obnoxious the way the lead agent (Novitsky, who's been known to have some kind of personal problem with Barry Bonds) handled the search warrant.

The warrant specifically told the agents that they could only seize the entire files if there was absolutely no way to sort it out on-site; employees of the company (which wasn't involved in anything illegal, offered to help sort everything), but Novitsky refused and took all records to 'peruse later.'

Additionally, the warrant said that the agents could only examine the evidence once computer experts had gone through and picked out only the relevant portions...and again Novitsky refused this.

The opinion says that the proper result is that the evidence will be turned back over to the testing company and the g'ment can't use anything they got except for the 10 players they were originally after.

[frikativ54]

Re: Court rules drug tests improperly seized

Federal prosecutors overstepping their authority? Wow, next thing you know, we'll be hearing about something equally hard to believe, like, say, the Earth is round

Rick
rickjlucas@gmail.com

Rick,

I am sure glad there are federal prosecutors. Without them, there would still be Barry Bonds in baseball. We have the feds to thank that baseball is as clean as it is. Hopefully, this decision will be appealed.

[rj_lucas]

Re: Court rules drug tests improperly seized

Rick,

I am sure glad there are federal prosecutors. Without them, there would still be Barry Bonds in baseball. We have the feds to thank that baseball is as clean as it is. Hopefully, this decision will be appealed.

No offense Les, but is that really where we want our Federal Government to be spending their time and resources?

Might their focus have been better directed on, say, Bernie Madoff and the other Masters of the Universe as they brought an entire economy to the brink of collapse?

Nero fiddles while Rome burns, but by golly, at least we brought down Barry Bonds aka Public Enemy Number One.

Rick
rickjlucas@gmail.com

[frikativ54]

Re: Court rules drug tests improperly seized

No offense Les, but is that really where we want our Federal Government to be spending their time and resources?

Might their focus have been better directed on, say, Bernie Madoff and the other Masters of the Universe as they brought an entire economy to the brink of collapse?

Nero fiddles while Rome burns, but by golly, at least we brought down Barry Bonds aka Public Enemy Number One.

Rick
rickjlucas@gmail.com

Why does it have to be an either/or proposition? Go after everybody, I say. And I think that it is important to show baseball that these athletes are not above the law. They are humans, and just because they are sports heroes doesn't mean that they can do whatever they want. I say stop being such cowards and release the whole list!

[treant985]

Re: Court rules drug tests improperly seized

Regardless of where prosecutors focus their attention, they still need to play by at least some semblence of the rules. Based on what I've read about this Novitsky guy, he's got the same mentality as the people he's chasing: I'm above the rules.

[David]

Re: Court rules drug tests improperly seized

If you don't enforce laws, you are in practice legalizing the activity. If your city says "Speeding is still illegal and speed signs will remain posted, but we are no longer going to give out tickets or otherwise enforce these laws" you can bet a majority of drivers will be speeding the following day, often by a lot.

So the flip side of not enforcing laws is that you are allowing the activity to proceed unfettered, essentially legalizing it.

[cohibasmoker]

Re: Court rules drug tests improperly seized

I sat down and read the opinion (had a road trip today), and it really was obnoxious the way the lead agent (Novitsky, who's been known to have some kind of personal problem with Barry Bonds) handled the search warrant.

The warrant specifically told the agents that they could only seize the entire files if there was absolutely no way to sort it out on-site; employees of the company (which wasn't involved in anything illegal, offered to help sort everything), but Novitsky refused and took all records to 'peruse later.'

Additionally, the warrant said that the agents could only examine the evidence once computer experts had gone through and picked out only the relevant portions...and again Novitsky refused this.

The opinion says that the proper result is that the evidence will be turned back over to the testing company and the g'ment can't use anything they got except for the 10 players they were originally after.

I really don't what this Novitsky did or didn't do but I've executed many a search warrant and it's not rocket science. The question is, while executing a search warrant, if additional evidence is found (relevant to the case or not), can the additional evidence be easily destroyed? If the answer is yes, seize it immediately. HOWEVER, if the scene is secured and you have control over the evidence and the actions of person(s) in the room, why not just pickup a cell phone, call the on-duty Judge, explain the situation and let the Judge tell you what you should do.

As for what the Federal Government choses to prosecute or not, that's really NOT our decision is it? However, the Feds have to play by the rules just like the rest of us.


Jim

[cjclong]

Re: Court rules drug tests improperly seized

Les, the reason that it has to be a limited proposition is that there are limited resources. There are only so many prosecutors and staff to handle cases. If you really want everything prosecuted then recommend huge tax increases to fund the additional prosecutors and staff needed. There are offenses right now that are not being investigated because of a lack of investigators and prosecutors. People think you just walk into a courtroom and question witnesses and that is it. Actually it takes hours and hours outside the courtroom to properly prepare a case and what you are seeing in a courtroom during trial is just the tip of the iceberg. Look how many months this case has taken and it isn't even in court for a jury trial yet. Everyone has the right to decide what they think priorities should be but I think there are real questions as to whether spending these kind of resources on prosecuting someone for allegedly lying about taking steroids is a valid use of those resources.