3 ms·

This title is literally true but misleading. The documents could be seized not because they were sent from overseas, but because the materials inside were not s

This title is literally true but misleading. The documents could be seized not because they were sent from overseas, but because the materials inside were not subject to attorney-client privilege in the first place. > It is important to note that if Correia had simply handed his notebooks and electronic devices to his counsel personally, the documents would not be privileged. At least in the U.S., attorney-client privilege does not apply to just any old thing you send to your lawyer. It's applicability depends on the content of the communications. > Because nothing in the package revealed any privileged communications between Correia and his counsel, the package cannot become privileged “merely because it was sent . . . between an attorney and client.”

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
> The documents could be seized not because they were sent from overseas, but because the materials inside were not subject to attorney-client privilege in the first place. agreed. I initially wanted to link to this tweet[1] with more context, but then decided to link to the original content/pdf instead. The word "overseas" should probably be removed but the window that allowed me to edit the title was already over unfortunately. That they happened to be overseas added some nuance (background info) in this specific case but it is confusing in the wider context of the discussion. [1] Paul Oetken rules that your phone can be seized with a warrant from DHL if you're sending it to your lawyer from overseas. So not a good way to avoid your phone being seized if you know you're going to be arrested on arrival. https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1275095032954052608 https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1275095032954052608
withinboredom 6y ago
By this logic, the police can wiretap an attorney's office because they don't always talk about "work." Then it's just a matter of some watercooler conversation in the station to get what you really want to know. Yeah, I know that it's illegal, but corruption doesn't care.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  That doesn't follow. The de minimus non privileged communication would not support a warrant for a wiretap and would poison every case handled by that firm. (Parallel construction would generally not be permitted, as that's usually only allowed for technical or inadvertent procedural defects in gathering evidence, not intentional and unlawful violations.)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago

> The documents could be seized not because they were sent from overseas, but because the materials inside were not subject to attorney-client privilege in the first place. agreed. I initially wanted to link to this tweet[1] with more context, but then decided to link to the original content/pdf instead. The word "overseas" should probably be removed but the window that allowed me to edit the title was already over unfortunately. That they happened to be overseas added some nuance (background info) in this specific case but it is confusing in the wider context of the discussion. [1] Paul Oetken rules that your phone can be seized with a warrant from DHL if you're sending it to your lawyer from overseas. So not a good way to avoid your phone being seized if you know you're going to be arrested on arrival. https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1275095032954052608 https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1275095032954052608

withinboredom 6y ago

By this logic, the police can wiretap an attorney's office because they don't always talk about "work." Then it's just a matter of some watercooler conversation in the station to get what you really want to know. Yeah, I know that it's illegal, but corruption doesn't care.

gamblor956 6y ago
That doesn't follow. The de minimus non privileged communication would not support a warrant for a wiretap and would poison every case handled by that firm. (Parallel construction would generally not be permitted, as that's usually only allowed for technical or inadvertent procedural defects in gathering evidence, not intentional and unlawful violations.)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]