Zieper v. Metzinger

Last updated

Zieper v. Metzinger was a case brought before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in which filmmaker Michael Zieper sued several officials of the Department of Justice. Zieper alleged that the actions of several Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and a United States Attorney may have violated the First Amendment rights of Zieper and others. The case was dismissed by the district court in 2005. [1] The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal in 2007 on the basis of qualified immunity. [2] [3] One legal critic referred to the case as a "a paradigmatic case of improper government action to leverage the weakness of intermediaries". [4]

At issue in the case was a film, Military Takeover in New York City, a work of fiction concerning the events of the upcoming New Year's Eve 1999. Produced by Michael Zieper of West Caldwell, New Jersey, the film was posted on the Internet at Zieper's personal website, CrowdedTheater.com. [5] It was accompanied by a note claiming that Zieper got the video from his "cousin Steve who's in the Army". [5] The complaint in the case later described the film as following the historical tradition of fictional portrayals of supposedly real events like The War of the Worlds and The Blair Witch Project . [6]

A segment about the film was broadcast on New York television station UPN 9 on November 10, 1999. That night, West Caldwell police and FBI agents went to Zieper's home, although he was not arrested. After the FBI agents were unsuccessful in persuading Zieper to take the film down, they contacted Zieper's web hosting service, who took it down. [7] The hosting service soon reconsidered and put the video back up, but became the focus of considerable online outrage for having bowed to pressure in suppressing the video. [5]

The American Civil Liberties Union represented Zieper in suing the FBI for First Amendment violations in December 1999. [8]

Agent Joe Metzinger of the FBI, one of the defendants named in the case, was involved in the investigation of Military Takeover in New York City. There were five co-defendants, including Metzinger. The others were: Attorney General Janet Reno; FBI Director Louis Freeh; Mary Jo White, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York; and Lisa Korologos, assistant U.S. Attorney.

Related Research Articles

<i>Miranda</i> warning Notification given by U.S. police to criminal suspects on their rights while in custody

In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection from self-incrimination; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials. Named for the U.S. Supreme Court's 1966 decision Miranda v. Arizona, these rights are often referred to as Miranda rights. The purpose of such notification is to preserve the admissibility of their statements made during custodial interrogation in later criminal proceedings. The idea came from law professor Yale Kamisar, who subsequently was dubbed "the father of Miranda."

The Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, title VII, subtitle N of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100–690, 102 Stat. 4181, enacted November 18, 1988, H.R. 5210, is part of a United States Act of Congress which places record-keeping requirements on the producers of actual, sexually explicit materials. The implementing regulations, part of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, require producers of sexually explicit material to obtain proof of age for every model they shoot and retain those records. Federal inspectors may inspect these records at any time and prosecute violations.

American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft is a lawsuit filed on behalf of a formerly unknown Internet Service Provider (ISP) company under the pseudonym John Doe, Inc. by the American Civil Liberties Union against the U.S. federal government, by the Department of Justice under former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LaRouche criminal trials</span> 1980s United States state and federal fraud trials

The LaRouche criminal trials in the mid-1980s stemmed from federal and state investigations into the activities of American political activist Lyndon LaRouche and members of his movement. They were charged with conspiring to commit fraud and soliciting loans they had no intention of repaying. LaRouche and his supporters disputed the charges, claiming the trials were politically motivated.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">José A. Cabranes</span> Puerto Rican judge (born 1940)

José Alberto Cabranes is an American lawyer who serves as a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and a former presiding judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ("FISCR"). Formerly a practicing lawyer, government official, and law teacher, he was the first Puerto Rican appointed to a federal judgeship in the continental United States (1979).

<i>American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency</i>

American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency, 493 F.3d 644, is a case decided July 6, 2007, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs in the case did not have standing to bring the suit against the National Security Agency (NSA), because they could not present evidence that they were the targets of the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" (TSP).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National security letter</span> US government administrative subpoena

A national security letter (NSL) is an administrative subpoena issued by the United States government to gather information for national security purposes. NSLs do not require prior approval from a judge. The Stored Communications Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and Right to Financial Privacy Act authorize the United States government to seek such information that is "relevant" to an authorized national security investigation. By law, NSLs can request only non-content information, for example, transactional records and phone numbers dialed, but never the content of telephone calls or e-mails.

Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the pleading standard for retaliatory prosecution claims against government officials. After a successful lobbying attempt by the CEO of a manufacturing company against competing devices that the US Postal Service supported, the CEO found himself the target of an investigation by US postal inspectors and a criminal prosecution that was dismissed for lack of evidence. The CEO then filed suit against the inspectors and other government officials for seeking to prosecute him in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights to criticize postal policy. The Court ruled 5-2 that to prove that the prosecution was caused by a retaliatory motive, the plaintiff bringing such a claim must allege and prove that the criminal charges were brought without probable cause.

Dennis G. Jacobs is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977), arising out of what is sometimes referred to as the Skokie Affair, was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court dealing with freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. This case is considered a "classic" free speech case in constitutional law classes. Related court decisions are captioned Skokie v. NSPA, Collin v. Smith, and Smith v. Collin. The Supreme Court ruled 5–4, per curiam. The Supreme Court's 1977 ruling granted certiorari and reversed and remanded the Illinois Supreme Court's denial to lift the lower court's injunction on the NSPA's march. In other words: the courts decided a person's assertion that speech is being restrained must be reviewed immediately by the judiciary. By requiring the state court to consider the neo-Nazis' appeal without delay, the U.S. Supreme Court decision opened the door to allowing the National Socialist Party of America to march.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Doe v. Gonzales</span> 2004 US lawsuit

John Doe v. Alberto R. Gonzales was a case in which the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Library Connection, and several then-pseudonymous librarians, challenged Section 2709 of the Patriot Act; it was consolidated on appeal with a separate case, Doe v. Ashcroft.

<i>Guiles v. Marineau</i>

In Guiles v. Marineau, 461 F.3d 320, cert. denied by 127 S.Ct. 3054 (2007), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States protect the right of a student in the public schools to wear a shirt insulting the President of the United States and depicting images relating to drugs and alcohol.

Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court determined, by a vote of 4–2, that non-U.S. citizens detained in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks cannot recover monetary damages from high level federal officials for the conditions of their confinement. The case was consolidated with Hastey v. Abbasi, and Ashcroft v. Abbasi. It was argued on January 18, 2017.

<i>Arar v. Ashcroft</i> American legal case

Arar v. Ashcroft, 585 F.3d 559, was a lawsuit brought by Maher Arar against the United States and various U.S. officials pursuant to the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed Arar's complaint due to lack of personal jurisdiction and national security and foreign policy considerations. This ruling was ultimately upheld by a divided en banc panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) is a nonprofit progressive legal organization based in Washington, D.C. Founded by Carl Messineo and Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, the organization focuses on cases regarding free speech and dissent, domestic spying and surveillance, police misconduct, and government transparency.

<i>American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland</i> Judgment on Constitutional issue

American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland, 560 F.3d 443, is a decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals involving a constitutional challenge—both facially and as-applied to internet communications—to an Ohio statute prohibiting the dissemination or display to juveniles of certain sexually-explicit materials or performances. The Sixth Circuit panel declined to resolve the constitutional issue but, instead, certified two questions to the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of the statute. The Ohio Supreme Court answered both questions affirmatively and placed a narrowing construction on the statute. Since the Ohio Supreme Court's decision, the Sixth Circuit has not reheard the case.

Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364 (1968), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court on privacy and the Fourth Amendment. It originated in the lower courts as United States ex rel. Frank DeForte, appellant v. Vincent R. Mancusi, Warden of Attica Prison, Attica, New York, appellee, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a prisoner who had exhausted all his state appeals. By a 6–3 margin the Court affirmed the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's reversal of a district court denial of the petition.

<i>American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper</i> American federal court case

American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, 785 F.3d 787, was a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its affiliate, the New York Civil Liberties Union, against the United States federal government as represented by then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The ACLU challenged the legality and constitutionality of the National Security Agency's (NSA) bulk phone metadata collection program.

Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga, 595 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the use of law enforcement surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) and the state secrets privilege defense. The case stems from a 2011 class action lawsuit filed against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) related to one of its surveillance operations. In August 2012, the district court dismissed the case on the basis of the FBI's invocation of state secrets privilege. The Ninth Circuit overturned this ruling in part in 2019, ruling that FISA precluded the defendants from invoking the state secrets defense. However, the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in a unanimous decision in March 2022, stating that FISA does not override the state secrets defense.

Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986), was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that clarified the relationship of the right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to other constitutional rights in criminal procedure. In this case, evidence against the defendant was probably seized illegally, violating the Fourth Amendment, but he lost the chance to argue that point due to his lawyer's ineffectiveness. The prosecution argued that the defendant's attempt to make a Sixth Amendment argument via a habeas corpus petition was really a way to sneak his procedurally defaulted Fourth Amendment claim in through the back door. The Court unanimously disagreed, and held that the Fourth Amendment issue and the Sixth Amendment issue represented different constitutional values, and had different requirements for prevailing in court, and therefore were to be treated separately by rules of procedure. Therefore, the habeas corpus petition could go forward. In its opinion, the Court also gave guidance on how to apply its decisions in Stone v. Powell and Strickland v. Washington.

References

  1. ↑ 392 F.Supp.2d 516.
  2. ↑ 474 F.3d 60.
  3. ↑ Montgomery, Chris (2009). "Can Brandenburg v. Ohio Survive the Internet and the Age of Terrorism: The Secret Weakening of a Venerable Doctrine". Ohio State Law Journal. 70: 141.
  4. ↑ Kreimer, Seth F. (2006). "Censorship by Proxy: The First Amendment, Internet Intermediaries, and the Problem of the Weakest Link". University of Pennsylvania Law Review: 177 n.23.
  5. 1 2 3 Howell, Peter (December 8, 1999). "Phony riot video on Web raises ruckus". Toronto Star. p. D1 – via Newspapers.com.
  6. ↑ Montgomery 2009, p. 169 n.182.
  7. ↑ Hornaday, Ann (May 11, 2003). "For Hoaxes, Mike Z Marks the Spot: 'Post-Ironic' Filmmaker Keeps It Unreal". Washington Post.
  8. ↑ "ACLU sues FBI, citing free speech infringement". New Bern Sun Journal. Associated Press. December 23, 1999. p. 2 – via NewspaperArchive.com.


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.