Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/278102565/Fattah-Third-Circuit-Opinion
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 07:20:51+00:00

Document:
An federal appeals court ruling will allow prosecutors to examine several years' worth of U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah's emails.
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER GOOGLE, INC.
Donald E. Wieand, Jr., Esq.
qualify for review under the collateral order doctrine.
Fattah was indicted by a grand jury on July 29, 2015.
conduct business. [Tr. 28: 18-22].
the Speech or Debate Clause, overbreadth, and relevance.
warrant authorizing the FBI to search Fattahs Gmail account.
to object to the request in a court of competent jurisdiction.
and the Speech or Debate Clause.
of a taint team to review for privileged documents.
that the warrant would violate the Speech or Debate Clause.
Rule 41(g) affords him no legitimate basis for relief.
denying the motion to quash the unexecuted search warrant.
motion to stay and subsequently denied the motion.
and for a stay of the District Courts order pending appeal.
doctrine, and (3) Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g).
doctrine, we have appellate jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C.
to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress if he is convicted.
grant jurisdiction under this ground.
doctrine falters. We review each requirement below.
second or third prongs, dooming his argument.
important issues that are separate from the merits of the case.
28 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 1994).
underlying action. He is incorrect.
587 F.2d 589, 593 (3d Cir. 1978)).
See United States v. Helstoski, 635 F.2d 200, 203 (3d Cir.
597; In re Grand Jury (Cianfrani), 563 F.2d 577, 584 (3d Cir.
Di Bella v. United States, 369 U.S. 121, 126 (1962)).
suppression motion is not a collateral order under 28 U.S.C.
v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 176 (2003).
Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 266 (1984).
(quoting Di Bella, 369 U.S. at 127).
into court to face trial on the charge against him).
appeal from the final judgment.29 The same is true here.
circumscribe the contours of the collateral order doctrine.
465 F.3d 114, 122-23 (3d Cir. 2006).
membership to motions to quash unexecuted search warrants.
Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349-50 (2006).
issue, is the third party in this case.
In re Grand Jury, 705 F.3d 133, 138 (3d Cir. 2012).
immediately appeal the District Courts order. We disagree.
247 U.S. 7, 12-13 (1918).
drawn: Fattah fails to cite a legally cognizable privilege.
warrant is properly challenged after it is executed.
here challenge the propriety of the appeal.).
Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306, 311-12 (1973).
we address the evidentiary privilege as applied to records.
Gravel, 408 U.S. at 616.
United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477, 487 (1979).
In re Grand Jury (Eilberg), 587 F.2d at 597.
questioned in a place other than the House or the Senate.
Member from potential criminal responsibility.
Id. (citing U.S. Const. art. 1 5, cl. 3).
defeat the right of the public to honest representation.
and the public, of this protection.
does not prohibit the disclosure of privileged documents.
Brewster, 408 U.S. at 52425).
legally cognizable privilege to support his claim.
See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 745 F.3d at 686.
destroyed by a disinterested third-party, Perlman applies.
followed by review by independent attorney federal agents.
they are turned over to those prosecuting his case.
Klitzman & Gallagher v. Krut, 744 F.2d 955, 962 (3d Cir.
1984); Black v. United States, 172 F.R.D. 511, 516 (S.D. Fla.
Executed on Mar. 19, 1992, 153 F.R.D. 55, 59 (S.D.N.Y.
acceptable to the District Court.
procedures it deems necessary to protect Fattahs privileges.
by FBI Special Agents not involved in the investigation.
635 F.3d 101, 103-05 (3d Cir. 2011).
under this ground as well.
Brewster, 408 U.S. at 516.
which he contends are privileged).
confidentiality privilege under the Speech or Debate Clause.
But [t]he question of the existence of a privilege . . .
States, 749 F.3d 999, 1006 (11th Cir. 2014). See also Ross v.
Account Controlled & Maintained by Microsoft Corp., No.
to be confidential that is central to the Perlman exception.
Perlman as the basis for its jurisdiction).
attorneys and their state clients).
congressperson, I fail to see the relevance of that distinction.
Neither did a panel of our Court the following year when U.S.
U.S. 500 (1979); Cianfrani, 563 F.3d 577)).
conclude that this claim succeeds. Majority Op. 22.
Perlman (citing Berkley, 629 F.2d 548)).
with the merits of the appeal. Arthur Andersen LLP v.
mandate. I therefore respectfully dissent in part.
US v. Dougherty, Henon, Burrows, et al.

References: v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.