Michael L. Seigel

• The Deal, Sept. 19. Quoted in article on a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on legislation that would limit federal prosecutors’ ability to pressure cooperation from companies under investigation for corporate fraud. The legislation would bar prosecutors from weighing a company’s willingness to waive its right to confidential communication with its lawyers when deciding to bring charges. “Privilege is actually the exception, not the rule,” said Seigel, one of two law professors whose testimony discouraged legislative action. “The rule is that the government, acting on behalf of the people, is entitled to ‘every man’s evidence’ when attempting to uncover the truth.” Read more online in the story reported by The Deal.

Christopher Slobogin
Stephen C. O’Connell Chair; Affiliate Professor of Psychiatry; Adjunct Professor, University of South Florida Mental Health Institute; Associate Director, Center for Children and Families

• The Gainesville Sun, Sept. 16. Published an op-ed on the Fourth Amendment and how the Supreme Court’s eagerness to narrow the scope of it has weakened what it is meant to stand for. “For two centuries, the courts have construed this language to mean that, outside of emergency situations, police who want to conduct a search must usually convince a judge that their investigative action is likely to produce evidence of wrongdoing,” Slobogin wrote. “Unfortunately, in the past three decades the U.S. Supreme Court has vastly reduced that security through a series of rulings interpreting the word ‘search’ for Fourth Amendment purposes.” To read a full transcript of the article, go to: http://www.law.ufl.edu/news/pdf/constitutionday_2007_oped.pdf.

• His book, Prosecution Principles: A Clinical Handbook, has been published by West Publishing Company.

Walter Weyrauch
Distinguished Professor; Stephen C. O’Connell Chair; Associate Director, Center on Children and Families

• His article, “The Experience of Lawlessness,” has been published at 10 New Criminal Law Review 415 (2007).

As a native Virginian and graduate of the College of William and Mary, Untiedt had every intention of moving back to her home state after law school graduation—but she just couldn’t bring herself to leave Gainesville.

“As graduation drew closer, I realized I wasn’t ready to leave Florida—we call it the ‘Gainesville Curse,’” she said. “I had been working at the Public Defender’s office as an intern, and I really enjoyed the experience, so I interviewed there and was hired for a full-time job.”

She got her start in the public interest field by working with professors who focused on issues that children and families face.

“I was a fellow with the Center on Children and Families under Professor Barbara Woodhouse and the Center for Governmental Responsibility under Tim McLendon,” she said. “My experiences with these renowned UF Law centers further cemented my commitment to public interest law.”

Untiedt enjoys her role as a public interest attorney because it allows her to express her passion of helping the less fortunate who have serious legal issues.

“I believe every attorney has a duty to use his or her degree to make our world a better place, whether by working in a public service position, volunteering pro bono hours, or sharing the wealth with service organizations,” she said. “I’ve chosen to provide direct client services to people who couldn’t otherwise afford a lawyer, and I have really enjoyed the experience.”

In August, Untiedt began a one-year Equal Justice Work AmeriCorps fellowship at Three Rivers, where she focuses on teaching UF Law students the clinical skills they will need to work with clients after graduation.

A great way for current students to make connections and find jobs is to reach out to UF Law alumni who work in their fields of interest, Untiedt said.

“Do whatever it takes to get real-life experience before you graduate, so you can make an informed decision about your career path,” she said. “Don’t be afraid to call up alumni who work in a field that interests you—even if you don’t know them—to ask questions and learn more about the day-to-day aspects of the job.”

Instead of a celebration, Slobogin said, much more apt would be a funeral service for the Fourth Amendment, the provision in the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires that warrants for searches and seizures be based on probable cause and describe what is being searched. Slobogin, whose book, Privacy at Risk: The New Government Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment, will soon be published by the University of Chicago Press, illustrated why he’s gloomy about the future of this part of the Constitution by talking “about the Fourth Amendment’s application—or more accurately under current law—its non-application to surveillance by the government.”

The Bush Administration’s surveillance policies have been much in the news lately, Slobogin said. Particularly in the past month there has been considerable controversy about the Protect America Act, which essentially permits the executive branch, with virtually no oversight by either the judicial or legislative branches, to eavesdrop on any phone call made to or from a person outside the United States.

Last year, there were revelations about the National Security Agency’s collection of millions of phone records in an effort to profile terrorists and other wrongdoers. Prior to that there was the Total Information Awareness datamining program, designed to cull through vast amounts of information from banks, credit card companies, hospitals, the IRS, phone companies, and a variety of other sources. Throughout all of this, Slobogin said, are various other types of surveillance programs, ranging from use of spy satellites and elaborate video camera systems run through multi-million dollar command centers to see-through technology that can penetrate walls.

“I have two messages here today,” Slobogin explained. “The first is the depressing one that, although all of these programs involve searches for information and often result in seizures of tangible items, only a few of them even come close to triggering the Fourth Amendment, as construed by the U.S. Surpeme Court. But I also have an optimistic message. That is that the public—that means you—and the courts, legislatures and yes, even the executive branch, can breath life back into the Fourth Amendment without sacrificing our nation’s security or preventing effective enforcement of our criminal laws.”