Former New York Governor and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer may be celebrating this weekend after today’s ruling by a federal appeals court that The New York Times lacked a First Amendment right to access sealed government wiretaps in the prostitution case that led to his resignation from office.
Reversing a lower court decision in favor of the Times, Judge José Cabranes wrote that:
The Second Circuit slammed the newspaper, saying that it failed to show the “good cause” required under the Federal Wiretap Act (often referred to as ‘Title III’) to permit the unsealing of the wiretaps involving Spitzer, the ‘Emperor’s Club V.I.P.’ prostitution ring, and Ashley Dupré, the Emperor’s Club employee to whom Spitzer $4,300 paid for sexual services while in Washington, D.C.
The Court held that the newspaper was not an ‘aggrieved person’ whose communications were intercepted under a wiretap, something that it said would suggest ‘good cause’ under the federal law.
Newspaper, schnewspaper, journalist, schmernoulist, the court seems to say, when it writes:
Given the ongoing public interest in Spitzer’s paying for prostitution while serving as New York State’s top government executive, one would think that the Times would be likely appeal the ruling all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The First Amendment implications of this new ruling, and how it can impact journalists’ ability to search for truth, and question the integrity of elected officials caught in criminal wrongdoing. Lacking the details contained the wiretaps – and the ability to hear voices, intonations, etc. – does not serve the public’s best interests. Is that what Congress intended when it created the law? Related Resources:
18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(b) - Procedure for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications Prostitution Ring Charges, (U.S. v. Brenner) , Referencing ‘Client-9,’ now known to be Spitzer (Mar. 2008) For An Aspiring Singer, a Harsher Spotlight, by Serge F. Kovaleski and Ian Urbina, The New York Times, (Mar. 13, 2008) Lawsuit Complaint (Dupré v. Francis, et al.,) (Apr. 28, 2008) Spitzer’s Thomson Legal Record
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.
Or contact an attorney near you: SPONSORED
Given the ongoing public interest in Spitzer’s paying for prostitution while serving as New York State’s top government executive, one would think that the Times would be likely appeal the ruling all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The First Amendment implications of this new ruling, and how it can impact journalists’ ability to search for truth, and question the integrity of elected officials caught in criminal wrongdoing. Lacking the details contained the wiretaps – and the ability to hear voices, intonations, etc. – does not serve the public’s best interests.
Is that what Congress intended when it created the law?
Related Resources:
- 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(b) - Procedure for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications
- Prostitution Ring Charges, (U.S. v. Brenner) , Referencing ‘Client-9,’ now known to be Spitzer (Mar. 2008)
- For An Aspiring Singer, a Harsher Spotlight, by Serge F. Kovaleski and Ian Urbina, The New York Times, (Mar. 13, 2008)
- Lawsuit Complaint (Dupré v. Francis, et al.,) (Apr. 28, 2008)
- Spitzer’s Thomson Legal Record
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
