You can’t question a secret you haven’t been told. The criminal legal system depends on fair and open proceedings to expose and regulate unlawful and unconstitutional police conduct through the courts. If police can use claims of secrecy to systematically thwart criminal defendants’ access to evidence, judicial review will fail. And yet that is exactly what is happening under a common-law doctrine called the “law enforcement privilege.” The privilege empowers police and prosecutors to rely on the results of secret investigative methods while withholding information from the defense about how those methods work. It risks perpetuating unconstitutional conduct, enabling wrongful convictions, and rendering Fourth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Brady, and statutory discovery laws moot. At the same time, it has a non-frivolous policy rationale. If all police investigative methods were public information, then more people committing crimes could evade detection.How can a better balance be struck? This Article argues that current law enforcement privilege doctrine creates a dangerously boundless police secrecy power because of a subtle conceptual collapse: The policy rationale itself is mistakenly used as the test for assessing claims of privilege. The Article recommends that courts instead evaluate privilege claims by reference to the marginal risk of leaking posed by in-court disclosure. Specifically, judges should demand to know what conditions law enforcement previously imposed on access to the information. The answer to that question can be adjudicated publicly without jeopardizing a legitimate privilege claim and will help judges detect mistaken, exaggerated, pretextual, or fraudulent claims to the privilege. Further, even when law enforcement has taken care with the information, if a court-ordered protective order can match or exceed the safeguards that law enforcement itself previously maintained, then judges should default to ordering disclosure. The Article concludes by suggesting a theory of the role of confidentiality in privilege law.
more »
« less
Ignorance of the Rules of Omission: An Essay on Privilege Law Ignorance of the Rules of Omission: An Essay on Privilege Law
- Award ID(s):
- 2243822
- PAR ID:
- 10516364
- Publisher / Repository:
- Vanderbilt Law Review Vanderbilt Law Review
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Vanderbilt law review
- ISSN:
- 0042-2533
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
How Can Platforms Learn to Make Persuasive Recommendations? Many online platforms make recommendations to users on content from creators or products from sellers. The motivation underlying such recommendations is to persuade users into taking actions that also serve system-wide goals. To do this effectively, a platform needs to know the underlying distribution of payoff-relevant variables (such as content or product quality). However, this distributional information is often lacking—for example, when new content creators or sellers join a platform. In “Learning to Persuade on the Fly: Robustness Against Ignorance,” Zu, Iyer, and Xu study how a platform can make persuasive recommendations over time in the absence of distributional knowledge using a learning-based approach. They first propose and motivate a robust-persuasiveness criterion for settings with incomplete information. They then design an efficient recommendation algorithm that satisfies this criterion and achieves low regret compared with the benchmark of complete distributional knowledge. Overall, by relaxing the strong assumption of complete distributional knowledge, this research extends the applicability of information design to more practical settings.more » « less
-
As an important step in the development of browser-based writing-to-learn software that provides immediate structural feedback, we seek ways to improve the quality of students essays and to optimize the software analysis algorithm. This quasi-experimental investigation compares the quality of students’ summary writing under three writing prompt conditions, otherwise identical prompts add either 0, 14, or 26 key terms. Results show that key terms matters substantially – the summary essays of those given the prompt without key terms had longer essays and the resulting networks of those essays were more like the expert referent and like their peers’ essays. Although tentative, these results indicate that writing prompts should NOT include key terms.more » « less
An official website of the United States government

