In a Law Journal article last week, “The Huma Abedin Emails: Herein Lies the Danger of Overseizure,” (Nov. 1, 2016), we discussed the government’s practice of “overseizure” that resulted in the FBI accessing Huma Abedin’s emails even though its warrant authorized a search for and seizure of the communications of Anthony Weiner. Since then, the legal machinations continued to their stunning conclusion when, on Sunday, FBI Director James Comey announced that the FBI had not located any new or significant evidence and that he was adhering to his earlier recommendation. Then, on Tuesday, the Republican candidate prevailed in the election.
The FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton’s handling of emails may be closed—again—and the next president chosen, but in the process, troubling aspects of the criminal justice system became the subject of intense scrutiny and continuous commentary. Even as the media moves on to post-election coverage, the issues arising from the government’s overseizure practices, and the actions of the FBI, remain crucial concerns for the legal community.
Is Overseizure Necessary?
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
