Government E-Mail Law & Policies P Legislative Immunity P - - PDF document

government e mail
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Government E-Mail Law & Policies P Legislative Immunity P - - PDF document

Introduction Government E-Mail Law & Policies P Legislative Immunity P Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Peter S. Wattson Senate Counsel P Minnesota Policies on Privacy of Minnesota Electronic Communications National Conference of State


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Government E-Mail

Law & Policies

Peter S. Wattson Senate Counsel Minnesota National Conference of State Legislatures Legislative Summit New Orleans, Louisiana July 24, 2008

Introduction

PLegislative Immunity PFederal Rules of Civil Procedure PMinnesota Policies on Privacy of Electronic Communications

Legislative Immunity

Origins

PCommon Law

< “That the Freedom of Speech, and Debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or quesioned in any Court or Place out of Parliament.”

PConstitutions

< “[F]or any speech or debate in either house, they shall not be questioned in any other place.”

PStatutes

Scope of Immunity

Legislative Acts

PWithin “the sphere of legitimate legislative activity” PAn “integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes”

< Enacting legislation < Other legislative duties

– Confirmation of executive appointments – Impeachment

Some Activities are Not Immune

Political Acts

PCommunications to the Press PCommunications to Constituents PPressure on the Executive Branch

Uses of Immunity

From Ultimate Relief

PCriminal Prosecution PLiability for Damages

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Uses of Immunity, cont’d

From Giving Testimony or Producing Documents

PIn Criminal Actions PIn Civil Actions

< Members of Congress < State Legislators < Local Legislators

Legislator and Aide “Treated as One”

Gravel v. United States (1972)

PSubcommittee on Buildings and Grounds PPentagon Papers

< Read aloud < Entered into public record

PGrand jury investigation of leak PProtective order - aide could not be questioned about the meeting

Electronic Documents Create Special Problems

United States v. Rayburn House Office Bldg. (2007) Congressman William Jefferson

PInvestigation of Congressman for bribery, wire fraud, conspiracy POffice searched

< Search of paper files violated Speech or Debate Clause < Copying computer files did not violate Speech

  • r Debate Clause

PPaper documents returned, computer files not

Electronic Documents Create Special Problems, cont’d

In re John Doe Proceeding (2004)

PDistrict attorney investigating campaign law violations by legislators and staff PJohn Doe judge subpoena PAll backup tapes of all electronically stored communications on December 15, 2001 = “hundreds of millions of printed pages” POverly broad - quashed

Electronic Documents Create Special Problems, cont’d

  • Wash. State Farm Bureau Fed. v. Gregoire (2006)

PSuit over state spending limit PE-mails among legislators, legislative staff, Governor’s staff, Attorney General PNon-privileged e-mails ordered disclosed PPrivileged message included within string

  • f non-privileged messages

PCourt ordered recipient party to black it

  • ut

Electronically Stored Information

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

P“Electronically stored information stands

  • n equal footing with . . . paper

documents” PExcept that, it doesn’t P“Because of lax corporate management, e-mail is often the most valuable source

  • f evidence in civil or criminal litigation.”
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Federal Court Rules on Electronic Information

Destruction of Communications

PNo sanction for loss of electronically stored information “as a result of routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information sytem.”

Sedona Conference Guidelines

Best Practices for Managing Information

PWhen litigation is anticipated, routine destruction practices must be suspended

Minnesota Statutes

PCorrespondence with elected official is private - Minn. Stat. § 13.601, subd. 2

< Unless made public by sender or recipient

PBill drafting files and communications

  • Minn. Stat. § 3C.05, subd. 1(a)

< Not public < Not subject to judicial process

Minnesota Senate Policies

Backup

PNo nightly backup of e-mail messages PUnless moved to separate directory

Conclusion

Government E-Mail

PLegislatures have a constitutional right to keep their electronic communications private PLegislatures need modern procedures to manage them

Government E-Mail

Law & Policies

Peter S. Wattson Senate Counsel Minnesota National Conference of State Legislatures Legislative Summit New Orleans, Louisiana July 24, 2008