<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Business, Employment and Real Estate Law in Ohio &#187; Business, Employment and Real Estate in Ohio</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ryanrivchun.com/category/criminal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ryanrivchun.com</link>
	<description>The legal blog of Ryan Rivchun on business, employment and real estate in Ohio</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:51:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Emails are protected by the 4th Amendment &#8211; At least in the 6th Circuit</title>
		<link>http://ryanrivchun.com/2010/12/emails-are-protected-by-the-4th-amendment-at-least-in-the-6th-circuit/</link>
		<comments>http://ryanrivchun.com/2010/12/emails-are-protected-by-the-4th-amendment-at-least-in-the-6th-circuit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:17:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ryan Rivchun</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brady]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cloud computing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal defendant rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search and seizure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[warshak]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ryanrivchun.com/?p=675</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a major decision released yesterday, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a search warrant is required before the government can secretly obtain emails from an email provider in the case of the United States of America v. Steven Warshak. A copy of the opinion is available here. COURT HOLDING Here, the court [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In a major decision released yesterday, the <a href="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/index.htm" target="_blank">6th Circuit Court of Appeals</a> held that a search warrant is required before the government can secretly obtain emails from an email provider in the case of the United States of America v. Steven Warshak. A copy of the opinion is available <a href="http://ryanrivchun.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/2010-12-14-10a0377p-06-Opinion-US-v.-Warshak.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
<p>COURT HOLDING</p>
<p>Here, the court held &#8220;that a subscriber enjoys a <a href="http://ryanrivchun.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/internet-privacy-pic.jpg"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-677" title="internet privacy pic" src="http://ryanrivchun.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/internet-privacy-pic.jpg" alt="" width="240" height="180" /></a>reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of emails &#8220;that are stored with, or sent or received through, a commercial ISP.&#8221;&#8230;The government may not compel a commercial ISP to turn over the contents of a subscriber&#8217;s emails without first obtaining a warrant based on probably cause. Therefore, because they did not obtain a warrant, the government agents violated the Fourth Amendment when they obtained the contents of Warshak&#8217;s emails. Moreover, to the extent that the [Stored Communications Act] purports to permit to the government to obtain such emails warrantlessly, the SCA is unconstitutional.&#8221;</p>
<p>GUIDANCE FOR PEOPLE CONSIDERING CLOUD COMPUTING</p>
<p>This opinion will also be helpful for attorneys and law firms considering using cloud storage and computing. The 6th Circuit emphasized that an ISP&#8217;s &#8220;control over the [emails] and ability to access them under certain limited circumstances will not be enough to overcome an expectation of privacy.&#8221;</p>
<p>The court also noted that the terms of a subscriber agreement may be enough to &#8220;snuff out&#8221; a reasonable expectation of privacy in a user and used an example of any ISP expressing an intention to &#8220;audit, inspect, and monitor&#8221; its subscriber&#8217;s emails. It shows that courts are starting to recognize the practical realities of how data is stored and accessed.</p>
<p>Thanks to the Electronic Frontier Foundation for <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/breaking-news-eff-victory-appeals-court-holds" target="_blank">posting </a>about this.</p>
<p>Imaged used under the <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en" target="_blank">Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license </a>from <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/o5com/" target="_blank">o5com.</a></p>

<!-- using Like-Button-Plugin-For-Wordpress [v4.2.5.1] | by http://www.gb-world.net -->
<iframe src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fryanrivchun.com%2F2010%2F12%2Femails-are-protected-by-the-4th-amendment-at-least-in-the-6th-circuit%2F&amp;layout=standard&amp;show_faces=false&amp;width=�&amp;action=like&amp;colorscheme=light&amp;height=�" scrolling="no" frameborder="�" allowTransparency="false" style="border:�; overflow:hidden; width:�px; height:�px"></iframe>
<!-- using Like-Button-Plugin-For-Wordpress [v4.2.5.1] | by http://www.gb-world.net -->
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ryanrivchun.com/2010/12/emails-are-protected-by-the-4th-amendment-at-least-in-the-6th-circuit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Understanding crosswalk stings in Ohio</title>
		<link>http://ryanrivchun.com/2010/10/understanding-crosswalk-stings-in-ohio/</link>
		<comments>http://ryanrivchun.com/2010/10/understanding-crosswalk-stings-in-ohio/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:11:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ryan Rivchun</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[traffic]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ryanrivchun.com/?p=625</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Columbus Dispatch wrote an article indicating that the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (a voluntary association of local government units) is working with Columbus municipalities to set up stings to ticket drivers that do not yield to pedestrians in crosswalks.  The Commissions notice is available here. The crosswalk laws are generally set forth in Ohio [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/index.html" target="_blank">Columbus Dispatch </a>wrote an <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/09/28/stings-are-aimed-at-crosswalk-safety.html" target="_blank">article </a>indicating that the <a href="http://www.morpc.org" target="_blank">Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission </a>(a voluntary association of local government units) is working with Columbus municipalities to set up stings to ticket drivers that do not yield to pedestrians in crosswalks.  The Commissions notice is available <a href="http://ryanrivchun.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/2010-10-01-CrosswalkStingsLK.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
<p>The crosswalk laws are generally set forth in Ohio Revised Code Sections <a href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.46" target="_blank">4511.46 </a>. For crosswalks were signals are not in place or operating, the &#8220;driver of a vehicle&#8230;shall yield the right of way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield&#8230;to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.&#8221; Ohio Revised Code Section 4511.46. There are additional sections of the Ohio Revised Code that deal with pedestrian crosswalk issues.</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see how this sting works in Columbus and if it is extended to other areas of Ohio. Hopefully this will be used as method of educating motorists and not as a source of revenue.</p>

<!-- using Like-Button-Plugin-For-Wordpress [v4.2.5.1] | by http://www.gb-world.net -->
<iframe src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fryanrivchun.com%2F2010%2F10%2Funderstanding-crosswalk-stings-in-ohio%2F&amp;layout=standard&amp;show_faces=false&amp;width=�&amp;action=like&amp;colorscheme=light&amp;height=�" scrolling="no" frameborder="�" allowTransparency="false" style="border:�; overflow:hidden; width:�px; height:�px"></iframe>
<!-- using Like-Button-Plugin-For-Wordpress [v4.2.5.1] | by http://www.gb-world.net -->
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ryanrivchun.com/2010/10/understanding-crosswalk-stings-in-ohio/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cleveland bans text messaging while driving</title>
		<link>http://ryanrivchun.com/2009/07/cleveland-bans-text-messaging-while-driving/</link>
		<comments>http://ryanrivchun.com/2009/07/cleveland-bans-text-messaging-while-driving/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:29:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ryan Rivchun</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ryanrivchun.com/?p=15</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today is the second day after the City of Cleveland&#8217;s new law banning text messaging while driving went into effect. Violations of the law will carry fines starting at $100.00. A copy of the new law published in the City Record is available here and is codified as Section 433.09 of the Codified Ordinances of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Today is the second day after the City of Cleveland&#8217;s new law banning text messaging while driving went into effect. Violations of the law will carry fines starting at $100.00.</p>
<p>A copy of the new law published in the City Record is available <a title="Text Message Law" href="http://www.dln.com/cr/index2009/April152009.pdf">here</a> and is codified as Section 433.09 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Cleveland.</p>

<!-- using Like-Button-Plugin-For-Wordpress [v4.2.5.1] | by http://www.gb-world.net -->
<iframe src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fryanrivchun.com%2F2009%2F07%2Fcleveland-bans-text-messaging-while-driving%2F&amp;layout=standard&amp;show_faces=false&amp;width=�&amp;action=like&amp;colorscheme=light&amp;height=�" scrolling="no" frameborder="�" allowTransparency="false" style="border:�; overflow:hidden; width:�px; height:�px"></iframe>
<!-- using Like-Button-Plugin-For-Wordpress [v4.2.5.1] | by http://www.gb-world.net -->
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ryanrivchun.com/2009/07/cleveland-bans-text-messaging-while-driving/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

