United States v. Waller

4 Citing cases

  1. U.S. v. Warshak

    631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010)   Cited 463 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Fourth Amendment protects private email communications

    It follows that email requires strong protection under the Fourth Amendment; otherwise, the Fourth Amendment would prove an ineffective guardian of private communication, an essential purpose it has long been recognized to serve. See U.S. Dist. Court, 407 U.S. at 313, 92 S.Ct. 2125; United States v. Waller, 581 F.2d 585, 587 (6th Cir. 1978) (noting the Fourth Amendment's role in protecting "private communications"). As some forms of communication begin to diminish, the Fourth Amendment must recognize and protect nascent ones that arise.

  2. United States v. Cotner

    657 F.2d 1171 (10th Cir. 1981)   Cited 6 times
    Finding sufficient evidence of a threat under 18 U.S.C. ยง 876 where two letters were sent by defendant to third party recipients about a specific target in a murder-for-hire plot

    There was no error in admitting the evidence of Trimmer. Defendant next contends that the application and order for the submission of handwriting exemplars was improper because the same was not issued in connection with an order to enforce a subpoena for court proceedings or for the grand jury. It has been held that the taking of handwriting exemplars does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, United States v. Pheaster, 544 F.2d 353 (9th Cir. 1976), nor the Fourth Amendment right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, United States v. Waller, 581 F.2d 585 (6 Cir. 1978), cert. denied 439 U.S. 1051, 99 S.Ct. 731, 58 L.Ed.2d 711. In United States v. Blakney, 581 F.2d 1389 (10th Cir. 1978), it was noted than an accused could be jailed for refusal to provide handwriting exemplars, citing United States v. Mara, 410 U.S. 19, 93 S.Ct. 774, 35 L.Ed.2d 99 (1973).

  3. U.S. v. Kallstrom

    446 F. Supp. 2d 772 (E.D. Mich. 2006)   Cited 3 times
    Concluding that the dictation method of obtaining a handwriting exemplar violated the Fifth Amendment by essentially requiring the person to state how he spells certain words and instead ordering that the defendant "provide samples of his handwriting to the government's representative by means of copying from a prepared text"

    "The Fourth and Fifth Amendments protect certain kinds of private communications and property interests but do not protect identifying characteristics such as voice and handwriting evidence." United States v. Waller, 581 F.2d 585, 587 (6th Cir. 1978) (citing Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1965)). In United States v. Mara, the Supreme Court held that a grand jury subpoena that compelled a witness to give handwriting exemplars to "be used solely as a standard of comparison," Mara, 410 U.S. at 22 n.*, to determine if the subject made other writings did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

  4. U.S. v. Morgan

    File No. 1:05-CR-286 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 7, 2006)

    ); Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 266-67 (1967) ("A mere handwriting exemplar, in contrast to the content of what is written, like the voice or body itself, is an identifying physical characteristic outside [the Fifth Amendment's] protection."). See also United States v. Williams, 704 U.S. 315, 317 (6th Cir. 1983) (holding that voice exemplar violates no constitutional right); United States v. Waller, 581 F.2d 585, 586-87 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1051 (1978) (holding that Fourth and Fifth Amendments do not protect identifying characteristics such as handwriting evidence). It appearing that the handwriting exemplars are relevant to the government's case and do not violate any of Defendants' constitutional rights,