<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>David E Clark</title>
<copyright>Copyright (c) 2010  All rights reserved.</copyright>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/david_clark</link>
<description>Recent documents in David E Clark</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Apr 2010 01:30:53 PDT</lastBuildDate>
<ttl>3600</ttl>


	
		
	

	
		
	







<item>
<title>Haiti Needs Socialism</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/david_clark/4</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/david_clark/4</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 2010 08:02:15 PDT</pubDate>
<description>Bill Clinton said that the Tsunami survivors six years ago deserved the chance to decide their own future.  Haiti deserves the same hands-off approach as they rebuild after the 2010 earthquake. Aristide should be allowed to return and work with Venezuela and Cuba.  If he decides to implement the same socialist reforms that have worked elsewhere in the Americas, so be it.</description>

<author>David E. Clark</author>


<category>Socialism</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>The Constitution Guarantees Doctor-Patient Confidentiality in Criminal Cases</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/david_clark/2</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/david_clark/2</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 2010 08:13:24 PDT</pubDate>
<description>Admitting medical records against a patient in a criminal case violates the fifth amendment because a patient is compelled to tell her doctor inculpatory information.  Issuing a search warrant for confidential doctor-patient records violates the right to privacy in the fourth amendment.  Warden v Hayden (1967) left open an important exception allowing a constitutional doctor-patient privilege in criminal cases.</description>

<author>David E. Clark</author>


<category>Law and Technology</category>

<category>Law Enforcement and Corrections</category>

<category>Criminal Law and Procedure</category>

<category>Constitutional Law</category>

<category>Practice and Procedure</category>

<category>Evidence</category>

<category>Civil Rights</category>

<category>Medical Privacy</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Computers, Search Warrants, and the Private Papers Exemption</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/david_clark/1</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/david_clark/1</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:05:41 PDT</pubDate>
<description>Police increasingly seek search warrants for information stored on personal computers.  Georgia law, OCGA 17-5-21(a)(5) prohibits the issuance of a search warrant for &quot;private papers,&quot;  which include any documents subject to a recognized privilege (attorney-client, doctor-patient).  This statute, and other technological factors, raise  the risk of a computer search warrant being ruled overbroad unless it is carefully drafted.  A constitutionally sound format for a computer search warrant application is given, along with guidelines for drafting and executing a warrant for digital property believed to be evidence of a crime.</description>

<author>David E. Clark</author>


<category>Civil Rights</category>

<category>Computer Law</category>

<category>Constitutional Law</category>

<category>Criminal Law and Procedure</category>

<category>Evidence</category>

<category>Law and Technology</category>

<category>Law Enforcement and Corrections</category>

<category>Practice and Procedure</category>

<category>Science and Technology</category>

</item>





</channel>
</rss>

