1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,000 --> 00:00:13,239
Speaker 2: Okay, Towey family, big smiles.

3
00:00:12,800 --> 00:00:22,040
Speaker 3: Everyone and a one two three.

4
00:00:20,200 --> 00:00:22,279
Speaker 1: Michael, Michael, come on down here and get in the

5
00:00:22,320 --> 00:00:22,960
Speaker 1: next one.

6
00:00:23,560 --> 00:00:26,079
Speaker 2: You threaten my son. You threaten me.

7
00:00:27,160 --> 00:00:29,120
Speaker 1: You so much is crossing to downtown.

8
00:00:29,520 --> 00:00:30,440
Speaker 2: You will be sorry.

9
00:00:30,680 --> 00:00:32,839
Speaker 1: I'm in a prayer group with a DA I'm a

10
00:00:32,880 --> 00:00:33,959
Speaker 1: member of the NRA.

11
00:00:34,159 --> 00:00:35,320
Speaker 2: And I'm always packing.

12
00:00:35,840 --> 00:00:39,000
Speaker 1: In the movie The blind Side, Michael Orr's story has

13
00:00:39,040 --> 00:00:43,000
Speaker 1: a happy fairytale ending. He's part of the Towey family

14
00:00:43,120 --> 00:00:44,080
Speaker 1: who adopt him.

15
00:00:44,680 --> 00:00:47,440
Speaker 3: We want to know if you would like to become

16
00:00:47,600 --> 00:00:48,559
Speaker 3: part of this family.

17
00:00:55,240 --> 00:00:58,360
Speaker 1: Kind of thought I already was, But Or now says

18
00:00:58,600 --> 00:01:01,720
Speaker 1: that was fiction. Though the Tuys still refer to him

19
00:01:01,760 --> 00:01:06,360
Speaker 1: as their son, they never adopted him. Instead, Sean and

20
00:01:06,480 --> 00:01:10,360
Speaker 1: LeeAnne Toohey placed him in a conservatorship, which gave them

21
00:01:10,560 --> 00:01:13,679
Speaker 1: total control over his legal rights, like the ability to

22
00:01:13,800 --> 00:01:18,800
Speaker 1: enter into contracts and make medical decisions. That conservatorship started

23
00:01:18,800 --> 00:01:22,440
Speaker 1: when he was eighteen years old and remains in effect today.

24
00:01:22,840 --> 00:01:26,600
Speaker 1: Nearly two decades later. Or is suing the Tooyes to

25
00:01:26,720 --> 00:01:29,679
Speaker 1: end the conservatorship and to get an accounting and his

26
00:01:29,840 --> 00:01:32,520
Speaker 1: share of money from the best selling book in film

27
00:01:32,560 --> 00:01:36,440
Speaker 1: based on his life. The Twoeys have denied any wrongdoing

28
00:01:36,600 --> 00:01:39,920
Speaker 1: and say they've treated or like a son. Joining me

29
00:01:40,040 --> 00:01:44,319
Speaker 1: is an expert in conservatorships, Jonathan Martinez, the Senior director

30
00:01:44,360 --> 00:01:47,720
Speaker 1: for Law and Policy in the Burton Blatt Institute at

31
00:01:47,760 --> 00:01:53,200
Speaker 1: Syracuse University. What's the most shocking thing to you about

32
00:01:53,200 --> 00:01:57,680
Speaker 1: this or conservatorship or isn't it shocking at all?

33
00:01:58,480 --> 00:02:01,800
Speaker 3: It's shocking, but not surprise what I've read about Michael

34
00:02:01,960 --> 00:02:04,400
Speaker 3: or what he has said about his situation. I just

35
00:02:04,600 --> 00:02:08,920
Speaker 3: literally recently read the blurb from his memoir where he

36
00:02:09,000 --> 00:02:12,680
Speaker 3: said he was told it was a quote unquote legal conservatorship,

37
00:02:12,880 --> 00:02:16,200
Speaker 3: but told it was the same thing as becoming adopted

38
00:02:16,280 --> 00:02:18,720
Speaker 3: or becoming part of the family. Tells me that he

39
00:02:18,760 --> 00:02:21,799
Speaker 3: didn't know what he was agreeing to, that he didn't

40
00:02:21,919 --> 00:02:25,480
Speaker 3: understand what a conservatorship is, and maybe the family didn't

41
00:02:25,560 --> 00:02:29,320
Speaker 3: understand what a conservatorship is, and that's the problem. Far

42
00:02:29,480 --> 00:02:33,960
Speaker 3: too often, conservatorship or guardianship as it's called in other states,

43
00:02:34,400 --> 00:02:38,760
Speaker 3: is done as a matter of convenience to make things easy,

44
00:02:39,080 --> 00:02:43,200
Speaker 3: when what it really does, by definition is removed people's rights.

45
00:02:43,240 --> 00:02:46,880
Speaker 3: Guardianship and conservatorship, and there is no problem with either

46
00:02:46,960 --> 00:02:51,560
Speaker 3: one of those when they're needed. By definition, takes your

47
00:02:51,680 --> 00:02:55,079
Speaker 3: rights away and gives them to someone else. And when

48
00:02:55,120 --> 00:02:57,839
Speaker 3: we say we're doing that because it's the same thing

49
00:02:57,880 --> 00:03:01,080
Speaker 3: as an adoption, it's not. Or if we're doing it

50
00:03:01,160 --> 00:03:06,120
Speaker 3: because it's easier than doing something else, it's not. Rights

51
00:03:06,160 --> 00:03:09,560
Speaker 3: are really precious things. The right to choose where and

52
00:03:09,800 --> 00:03:13,120
Speaker 3: how and with whom we live are the things that

53
00:03:13,160 --> 00:03:15,880
Speaker 3: make us who we are. So when I hear something

54
00:03:16,040 --> 00:03:18,760
Speaker 3: like I sign the paper because I was told it

55
00:03:18,840 --> 00:03:21,320
Speaker 3: was the best way or the easiest way, or I

56
00:03:21,360 --> 00:03:24,640
Speaker 3: was told it was the same as it's shocking, but

57
00:03:24,760 --> 00:03:29,160
Speaker 3: it's not surprising because I've heard it many many other times,

58
00:03:29,440 --> 00:03:33,600
Speaker 3: from judges, from lawyers, from families. It's just easier, and

59
00:03:33,680 --> 00:03:35,080
Speaker 3: it shouldn't be easy.

60
00:03:34,840 --> 00:03:40,840
Speaker 1: To remove, right, So explain the difference between adoption and conservatorship.

61
00:03:41,160 --> 00:03:45,400
Speaker 3: The adoption, one person becomes the legal parent of someone else,

62
00:03:45,480 --> 00:03:48,440
Speaker 3: and parents have certain rights when it comes to their children.

63
00:03:48,840 --> 00:03:51,960
Speaker 3: But when you adopt an adult, you don't get the

64
00:03:52,040 --> 00:03:55,240
Speaker 3: right to override their decisions. You just become known as

65
00:03:55,480 --> 00:03:58,800
Speaker 3: their mother or their father for legal purposes. If you

66
00:03:58,880 --> 00:04:01,640
Speaker 3: adopt a minor. That is very different if you adopt

67
00:04:01,640 --> 00:04:04,040
Speaker 3: a seventeen year old. Michael Orr was over eighteen, so

68
00:04:04,360 --> 00:04:06,720
Speaker 3: they would not have gained if they had adopted him,

69
00:04:06,760 --> 00:04:09,520
Speaker 3: the right to make decisions for him or manage his

70
00:04:09,600 --> 00:04:11,920
Speaker 3: money without him having the right to say yes or no.

71
00:04:12,720 --> 00:04:17,760
Speaker 3: In a conservatorship or guardianship, what happens is a person becomes,

72
00:04:17,839 --> 00:04:21,240
Speaker 3: in a very real sense, the other person. Legally, if

73
00:04:21,279 --> 00:04:24,719
Speaker 3: I'm your guardian, I get the right to make decisions

74
00:04:24,760 --> 00:04:28,760
Speaker 3: for you. I'm the final decision maker. It's my say so,

75
00:04:28,920 --> 00:04:31,320
Speaker 3: whether or not you like it. If I'm an adult

76
00:04:31,360 --> 00:04:33,920
Speaker 3: and my mom is still my mom, she doesn't get

77
00:04:33,920 --> 00:04:36,440
Speaker 3: the right to make decisions for me if I don't

78
00:04:36,480 --> 00:04:39,359
Speaker 3: want her to do so. But if my mom was

79
00:04:39,480 --> 00:04:43,680
Speaker 3: my guardian or my conservator, she would have the right

80
00:04:43,760 --> 00:04:45,760
Speaker 3: to do that even if I didn't want her to.

81
00:04:46,040 --> 00:04:49,240
Speaker 1: The two weeys haven't filed an answer yet to the complaint,

82
00:04:49,640 --> 00:04:53,240
Speaker 1: but in response they've said that lawyers told them at

83
00:04:53,240 --> 00:04:55,840
Speaker 1: the time they had to use a conservatorship, not an

84
00:04:55,880 --> 00:05:00,240
Speaker 1: adoption because Or was eighteen and also that but the

85
00:05:00,279 --> 00:05:05,039
Speaker 1: conservatorship was the quickest way to satisfy the NCAA's concerns.

86
00:05:05,040 --> 00:05:08,640
Speaker 1: That the family was just steering him to their alma mater,

87
00:05:08,880 --> 00:05:12,719
Speaker 1: oh Miss. But Tennessee law says eighteen year olds can

88
00:05:12,800 --> 00:05:16,680
Speaker 1: be adopted. It just requires the sworn, written consent of

89
00:05:16,760 --> 00:05:18,600
Speaker 1: the person sought to be adopted.

90
00:05:18,960 --> 00:05:22,240
Speaker 3: I wasn't there, I didn't hear the advice given. But

91
00:05:22,440 --> 00:05:26,520
Speaker 3: once again, this is hardly surprising. I've heard lawyers give

92
00:05:26,560 --> 00:05:29,640
Speaker 3: the advice to seek a guardianship or seek a conservatorship

93
00:05:29,800 --> 00:05:33,040
Speaker 3: because it's easier, because it's more convenient, because it's the

94
00:05:33,080 --> 00:05:36,559
Speaker 3: fastest way to do things, when what it really does

95
00:05:36,720 --> 00:05:40,280
Speaker 3: is remove people's right. What you've said about Tennessee law,

96
00:05:40,360 --> 00:05:43,680
Speaker 3: that's also not surprising because adults can be adopted anywhere,

97
00:05:43,839 --> 00:05:47,320
Speaker 3: So it doesn't surprise me that someone would receive the

98
00:05:47,360 --> 00:05:50,200
Speaker 3: advice to take the quickest path, and if in their

99
00:05:50,240 --> 00:05:54,600
Speaker 3: minds the quickest path was conservatorship. Again, it is shocking

100
00:05:54,920 --> 00:05:58,640
Speaker 3: that we in the year twenty twenty three, we'd be

101
00:05:58,800 --> 00:06:04,279
Speaker 3: giving people to remove someone else's legal rights because it's convenient.

102
00:06:04,720 --> 00:06:06,720
Speaker 3: But that seems to be exactly what happened, and it

103
00:06:06,800 --> 00:06:07,760
Speaker 3: happens a lot.

104
00:06:08,520 --> 00:06:13,960
Speaker 1: For a conservatorship, Tennessee law requires evidence of a disability,

105
00:06:14,360 --> 00:06:16,719
Speaker 1: and there was no evidence of a disability listed for

106
00:06:16,960 --> 00:06:18,800
Speaker 1: or should a judge have caught that.

107
00:06:20,320 --> 00:06:22,320
Speaker 3: There were stuck once again in the theory of a

108
00:06:22,400 --> 00:06:26,080
Speaker 3: conveyor belt, where judges will say, if no one objects,

109
00:06:26,120 --> 00:06:29,279
Speaker 3: I'll sign this order. And no one objects, But the

110
00:06:29,279 --> 00:06:32,920
Speaker 3: answer to your question is yes. I speak with judges

111
00:06:33,040 --> 00:06:37,120
Speaker 3: a lot. I've lectured to judges, I have presented judicial conferences,

112
00:06:37,400 --> 00:06:39,440
Speaker 3: and here's what I tell them about guardianship. I tell

113
00:06:39,440 --> 00:06:43,440
Speaker 3: the judges that you are the true guardians of the

114
00:06:43,560 --> 00:06:49,000
Speaker 3: law unintended. You have to make sure before you sign

115
00:06:49,080 --> 00:06:52,880
Speaker 3: that paper that everything is in order. You would not

116
00:06:53,480 --> 00:06:56,359
Speaker 3: enter an order that wasn't legally appropriate. In a different

117
00:06:56,440 --> 00:06:58,640
Speaker 3: kind of case, you would not convict someone of a

118
00:06:58,720 --> 00:07:02,520
Speaker 3: crime unlady, there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact,

119
00:07:02,600 --> 00:07:06,080
Speaker 3: when someone pleads guilty, the judge has to hold a

120
00:07:06,200 --> 00:07:09,880
Speaker 3: hearing to make sure that that lee is knowing and voluntary,

121
00:07:09,880 --> 00:07:12,080
Speaker 3: and if the judge doesn't think it is, the judge

122
00:07:12,080 --> 00:07:15,680
Speaker 3: has an obligation not to expect it. So judges in

123
00:07:15,800 --> 00:07:20,080
Speaker 3: guardianship cases, even when no one objects, in my opinion,

124
00:07:20,480 --> 00:07:24,760
Speaker 3: have an obligation to make sure it's still appropriate for

125
00:07:24,880 --> 00:07:28,800
Speaker 3: guardianship or for conservatorship. I tell judges this. I tell

126
00:07:28,840 --> 00:07:32,480
Speaker 3: people this all the time. The most important question we

127
00:07:32,560 --> 00:07:35,760
Speaker 3: can ask before we agree that the guardianship is right

128
00:07:35,880 --> 00:07:39,240
Speaker 3: is this one. What else have you tried? Because in

129
00:07:39,360 --> 00:07:42,520
Speaker 3: ninety eight percent of cases, yes, a person in a coma,

130
00:07:42,600 --> 00:07:45,080
Speaker 3: of course needs a guardian. A person at the end

131
00:07:45,120 --> 00:07:48,240
Speaker 3: stages of dementia, of course needs a guardian. I understand.

132
00:07:48,440 --> 00:07:50,400
Speaker 3: But a whole lot of the time, how do you

133
00:07:50,600 --> 00:07:53,960
Speaker 3: know that this is your only option? That a person

134
00:07:54,160 --> 00:07:57,800
Speaker 3: truly cannot make decisions or manage their own lives until

135
00:07:57,920 --> 00:08:01,440
Speaker 3: they've taken the time to examine and explore whether it's

136
00:08:01,480 --> 00:08:06,000
Speaker 3: something else that would preserve the person's rights might help.

137
00:08:06,160 --> 00:08:10,560
Speaker 3: There are recognized alternatives that could help in a situation.

138
00:08:10,960 --> 00:08:13,880
Speaker 3: They might help, they might not. If they wouldn't help,

139
00:08:14,200 --> 00:08:17,600
Speaker 3: then guardianship and conservatorship are fine. But given the rights

140
00:08:17,600 --> 00:08:20,400
Speaker 3: at stake are the rights that you and I and

141
00:08:20,520 --> 00:08:24,080
Speaker 3: every American should hold, precious freedom of speech, freedom of association,

142
00:08:24,160 --> 00:08:26,640
Speaker 3: and freedom to vote, freedom to marry, all of these

143
00:08:26,680 --> 00:08:28,800
Speaker 3: things that make us who we are, they're at stake

144
00:08:29,160 --> 00:08:33,360
Speaker 3: in a guardianship or conservatorship, And given that, shouldn't a

145
00:08:33,480 --> 00:08:37,160
Speaker 3: judge take that second to say, wait a second, I

146
00:08:37,400 --> 00:08:40,520
Speaker 3: know that everyone agrees that they want this, but is

147
00:08:40,600 --> 00:08:44,360
Speaker 3: this legally appropriate? I think that is the least the

148
00:08:44,440 --> 00:08:46,439
Speaker 3: judicial system can do in a case like this.

149
00:08:47,480 --> 00:08:50,160
Speaker 1: When a defendant pleads guilty, the judge asks, are you

150
00:08:50,160 --> 00:08:52,280
Speaker 1: pleading of your own accord if you take the drugs?

151
00:08:52,320 --> 00:08:55,560
Speaker 1: Blah blah blah. Do they ask the prospective war do

152
00:08:55,640 --> 00:08:57,840
Speaker 1: you understand what you're giving up here?

153
00:08:59,080 --> 00:09:02,000
Speaker 3: I have seen these case is done entirely on paper.

154
00:09:02,720 --> 00:09:05,200
Speaker 3: The quick anecdote I can give you is there's a

155
00:09:05,200 --> 00:09:08,720
Speaker 3: phenomenon called a ghost guardianship where a person winds up

156
00:09:08,720 --> 00:09:11,600
Speaker 3: in guardianship without a hearing, sometimes not even notice. In

157
00:09:11,640 --> 00:09:14,360
Speaker 3: some states, that happens that we not only don't have

158
00:09:14,400 --> 00:09:17,160
Speaker 3: an inquiry, we don't even have the barest minimum of

159
00:09:17,200 --> 00:09:20,680
Speaker 3: an inquiry where even if the law says you're entitled

160
00:09:20,679 --> 00:09:23,480
Speaker 3: to notice as an opportunity to be heard. I have

161
00:09:23,640 --> 00:09:26,880
Speaker 3: done research where I have found have rural cases with

162
00:09:27,240 --> 00:09:31,440
Speaker 3: even that minimum didn't happen. So yes, and when asked,

163
00:09:31,520 --> 00:09:34,360
Speaker 3: I have heard judges say I've heard people say, well,

164
00:09:34,400 --> 00:09:37,679
Speaker 3: we're just trying to make it easier. This is a

165
00:09:37,800 --> 00:09:39,840
Speaker 3: parent who is trying to take care of someone, or

166
00:09:39,880 --> 00:09:42,080
Speaker 3: this is a caring friend who is trying to do

167
00:09:42,160 --> 00:09:46,160
Speaker 3: much best for someone. And I understand that the motivations

168
00:09:46,280 --> 00:09:49,880
Speaker 3: try to be helpful, But again, think about what's at stake.

169
00:09:50,440 --> 00:09:53,960
Speaker 3: Shouldn't we have the barest minimum to make sure that

170
00:09:54,160 --> 00:09:58,040
Speaker 3: such an extreme remedy is right before.

171
00:09:57,679 --> 00:09:58,199
Speaker 2: We do it.

172
00:09:58,720 --> 00:10:00,400
Speaker 1: I think I know your answer to this question, but

173
00:10:00,440 --> 00:10:02,400
Speaker 1: I'm going to ask you if this shocks you. In

174
00:10:02,480 --> 00:10:07,240
Speaker 1: Oors case, the judge who approved his conservatorship told Bloomberg

175
00:10:07,280 --> 00:10:10,719
Speaker 1: that no case papers ever crossed his desk after the

176
00:10:10,760 --> 00:10:16,160
Speaker 1: initial approval. So the conservators never filed annual accountings or

177
00:10:16,280 --> 00:10:21,120
Speaker 1: fiduciary or other court papers for nearly twenty years. Does

178
00:10:21,160 --> 00:10:22,719
Speaker 1: that surprise you?

179
00:10:22,720 --> 00:10:26,080
Speaker 3: No. I have a case very recently in another state

180
00:10:26,679 --> 00:10:31,200
Speaker 3: where we terminated the guardianship after over ten years because

181
00:10:31,440 --> 00:10:33,800
Speaker 3: no reports that have been filed. And by the way,

182
00:10:33,840 --> 00:10:36,280
Speaker 3: the person have been putting guardianship in the first place

183
00:10:36,520 --> 00:10:39,319
Speaker 3: without such an inquiry and without such a hearing. So no,

184
00:10:39,520 --> 00:10:41,200
Speaker 3: of course it happens. And here's are I'll be a

185
00:10:41,240 --> 00:10:44,600
Speaker 3: little sympathetic to courts. They are overwhelmed. They have lots

186
00:10:44,640 --> 00:10:46,400
Speaker 3: of paperwork they have to look at, they have lots

187
00:10:46,400 --> 00:10:48,959
Speaker 3: of cases before them, So it may be that they

188
00:10:48,960 --> 00:10:51,840
Speaker 3: don't notice that a report isn't filed. But on the

189
00:10:51,880 --> 00:10:54,880
Speaker 3: other hand, is this their obligation to notice? If the

190
00:10:55,200 --> 00:10:59,560
Speaker 3: laws says you must file annual accountings, and I know

191
00:10:59,640 --> 00:11:02,040
Speaker 3: it does, it doesn't ever say, God, I've booked up.

192
00:11:02,520 --> 00:11:05,959
Speaker 3: Why does it say that if it's not being done.

193
00:11:06,120 --> 00:11:09,880
Speaker 3: It is there to create that important safeguard. It is

194
00:11:09,960 --> 00:11:13,480
Speaker 3: there to create a backstop to make sure that at

195
00:11:13,520 --> 00:11:19,920
Speaker 3: all times guardianship remains appropriate, that conservatorship remains the right option. Well,

196
00:11:19,960 --> 00:11:22,360
Speaker 3: if we're not looking at the papers, we're even looking

197
00:11:22,679 --> 00:11:25,800
Speaker 3: for the papers, where is that safeguard?

198
00:11:26,840 --> 00:11:31,160
Speaker 1: Or is seeking end the conservatorship and to require the

199
00:11:31,400 --> 00:11:36,160
Speaker 1: twoes to account for their actions? But an attorney representing

200
00:11:36,200 --> 00:11:39,760
Speaker 1: the twoe'es said they plan to enter a consent order

201
00:11:40,280 --> 00:11:45,920
Speaker 1: to end the conservatorship. What happens then to Ore's request

202
00:11:46,000 --> 00:11:48,480
Speaker 1: for an accounting? Will there be an accounting?

203
00:11:49,120 --> 00:11:51,640
Speaker 3: I don't know. You can say you hope so, But

204
00:11:51,720 --> 00:11:55,760
Speaker 3: I can give you a more concerning issue. If they're

205
00:11:55,800 --> 00:11:59,480
Speaker 3: willing to enter a consent order now that a conservatorship

206
00:11:59,559 --> 00:12:03,360
Speaker 3: wasn't required, doesn't that mean they know he doesn't need one?

207
00:12:03,720 --> 00:12:06,160
Speaker 3: And the question I would ask was when did they

208
00:12:06,240 --> 00:12:08,520
Speaker 3: know and how long have they known? And haven't they

209
00:12:08,600 --> 00:12:12,359
Speaker 3: always known? That's what I mean about rights being precious.

210
00:12:12,480 --> 00:12:14,720
Speaker 3: It was the easiest thing to do to put him

211
00:12:14,760 --> 00:12:20,280
Speaker 3: in conservatorship, But that easy thing removed Michael Orr's rights.

212
00:12:20,320 --> 00:12:23,440
Speaker 3: And if it's now so easy to enter a consent

213
00:12:23,520 --> 00:12:26,640
Speaker 3: decree to remove it, why were his rights removed in

214
00:12:26,679 --> 00:12:29,480
Speaker 3: the first place. Why do we have such a cavalier

215
00:12:29,600 --> 00:12:34,640
Speaker 3: attitude about a person's fundamental legal rights that we can

216
00:12:34,679 --> 00:12:36,720
Speaker 3: say at the drop of a hat, oh, I'll remove it.

217
00:12:36,760 --> 00:12:38,920
Speaker 3: I'll remove the conservative ship, just like we said at

218
00:12:38,920 --> 00:12:41,360
Speaker 3: the drop of a hat, I'll remove those rights. Would

219
00:12:41,360 --> 00:12:43,880
Speaker 3: you want that to happen to you? Would you want

220
00:12:44,040 --> 00:12:47,160
Speaker 3: your rights to be so fragile that they could be

221
00:12:47,160 --> 00:12:50,080
Speaker 3: taken away at the drop of a hat and restored

222
00:12:50,280 --> 00:12:52,959
Speaker 3: at the drop of a hat. Shouldn't they be something

223
00:12:53,040 --> 00:12:56,640
Speaker 3: that is respected and protected the same way they's supposed

224
00:12:56,679 --> 00:12:56,840
Speaker 3: to be?

225
00:12:57,480 --> 00:13:01,920
Speaker 1: So he was in the fell for years and years

226
00:13:02,280 --> 00:13:05,280
Speaker 1: and made quite a lot of money. Any contract that

227
00:13:05,400 --> 00:13:08,239
Speaker 1: he signed. Would they have had to sign the contract

228
00:13:08,240 --> 00:13:08,760
Speaker 1: for him?

229
00:13:09,320 --> 00:13:11,680
Speaker 3: Once again, obviously I wasn't there, so I can't answer

230
00:13:11,720 --> 00:13:15,200
Speaker 3: what was done, and I can't answer how his conservatorship

231
00:13:15,280 --> 00:13:18,720
Speaker 3: specifically was set up. But if it is a standard

232
00:13:18,720 --> 00:13:22,800
Speaker 3: the conservatorship, which essentially removes person a's rights and gives

233
00:13:22,840 --> 00:13:26,480
Speaker 3: them to person B, then yes, the legal conservator would

234
00:13:26,520 --> 00:13:29,440
Speaker 3: stand in the place of the person and would be

235
00:13:29,559 --> 00:13:32,840
Speaker 3: ultimately the one who had to approve any legal documents.

236
00:13:33,040 --> 00:13:35,280
Speaker 3: That's the way it should work, the way the laws

237
00:13:35,559 --> 00:13:38,040
Speaker 3: and to be written. I have no idea what happened

238
00:13:38,040 --> 00:13:39,240
Speaker 3: in his specific situation.

239
00:13:39,880 --> 00:13:44,559
Speaker 1: And conservatorships in general, do they go on until someone

240
00:13:44,679 --> 00:13:47,680
Speaker 1: makes a move to put a stop to them.

241
00:13:48,280 --> 00:13:50,440
Speaker 3: Yes. I tell people this all the time. When you

242
00:13:50,480 --> 00:13:53,640
Speaker 3: apply to be your child or your loved ones guardian,

243
00:13:53,640 --> 00:13:56,439
Speaker 3: our conservator, what you're really doing is inviting the court

244
00:13:56,520 --> 00:13:59,040
Speaker 3: into your life for the rest of that person's life

245
00:13:59,160 --> 00:14:01,720
Speaker 3: because you're suppose to give those reports, you were supposed

246
00:14:01,720 --> 00:14:04,280
Speaker 3: to do all of those things, and that guardianship or

247
00:14:04,320 --> 00:14:08,440
Speaker 3: conservatorship will continue until it is ended by you or

248
00:14:08,480 --> 00:14:11,520
Speaker 3: by someone else, or by the person. You have invited

249
00:14:11,559 --> 00:14:14,160
Speaker 3: the court and the court system into your life forever

250
00:14:14,320 --> 00:14:15,000
Speaker 3: until it's over.

251
00:14:15,280 --> 00:14:20,000
Speaker 1: So he's asking for an accounting and also for compensatory

252
00:14:20,040 --> 00:14:23,640
Speaker 1: and punitive damages for their misconduct. Does that seem like

253
00:14:23,680 --> 00:14:24,600
Speaker 1: an uphill battle?

254
00:14:25,080 --> 00:14:28,320
Speaker 3: I've never heard of a person receiving damages because of

255
00:14:28,360 --> 00:14:32,040
Speaker 3: a conservatorship problem. I think it's an interesting concept. I'd

256
00:14:32,040 --> 00:14:34,000
Speaker 3: certainly like to see how it plays out. I haven't

257
00:14:34,040 --> 00:14:36,280
Speaker 3: read the lawsuit, so I can't tell you what theory

258
00:14:36,320 --> 00:14:40,000
Speaker 3: they're using for it. But if wrong was done, and

259
00:14:40,040 --> 00:14:42,080
Speaker 3: I have no idea if wrong was done, but if

260
00:14:42,080 --> 00:14:45,640
Speaker 3: this person was genuinely wrong, then shouldn't he have a

261
00:14:45,840 --> 00:14:49,880
Speaker 3: right to have an accounting both fiscal see how much

262
00:14:49,920 --> 00:14:54,440
Speaker 3: money was misused, and you know, emotional to have them

263
00:14:54,520 --> 00:14:58,920
Speaker 3: be accountable to him if they did wrong. I think

264
00:14:58,960 --> 00:15:01,440
Speaker 3: that's why we have courts systems, and I hope the

265
00:15:01,480 --> 00:15:02,240
Speaker 3: answer is found.

266
00:15:02,840 --> 00:15:07,680
Speaker 1: Did the Britney Spears conservatorship bring light to this area

267
00:15:07,720 --> 00:15:08,080
Speaker 1: at all?

268
00:15:09,080 --> 00:15:13,840
Speaker 3: Absolutely? Absolutely it did. The Free Britney movement was huge

269
00:15:13,920 --> 00:15:17,120
Speaker 3: on castail light on the exact issue. I was talking

270
00:15:17,120 --> 00:15:21,920
Speaker 3: about that fundamental nature of guardianship and conservatorship and that question.

271
00:15:22,000 --> 00:15:24,960
Speaker 3: I said, we need to ask what else can we try?

272
00:15:25,040 --> 00:15:27,400
Speaker 3: Think about Britney Spears for a second. This is a

273
00:15:27,520 --> 00:15:33,000
Speaker 3: multi multi multimillionaire. If Britney Spears if had a disability

274
00:15:33,040 --> 00:15:35,960
Speaker 3: that prevented her from managing her own life, the question

275
00:15:36,000 --> 00:15:39,880
Speaker 3: would be where those disabilities are and what impacts they caused?

276
00:15:40,040 --> 00:15:42,360
Speaker 3: Did they make it impossible for her to manage her

277
00:15:42,400 --> 00:15:46,720
Speaker 3: money well given the resources she had? Instead of removing

278
00:15:46,760 --> 00:15:49,240
Speaker 3: her right to manage her money, couldn't they have set

279
00:15:49,320 --> 00:15:51,480
Speaker 3: up a system where she had an accountant or an

280
00:15:51,520 --> 00:15:55,480
Speaker 3: advisor or a fiscal manager to help her do that

281
00:15:55,760 --> 00:15:59,200
Speaker 3: rather than entirely removing her right to do so. If

282
00:15:59,240 --> 00:16:02,360
Speaker 3: the problems were around relationships, what therapy have been a

283
00:16:02,360 --> 00:16:05,800
Speaker 3: better option rather than jumping to removing her right to

284
00:16:05,880 --> 00:16:08,200
Speaker 3: decide what to do with her own body. So of

285
00:16:08,360 --> 00:16:11,000
Speaker 3: course it's shone a light on that, and I hope

286
00:16:11,040 --> 00:16:15,040
Speaker 3: those conversations continue because while the Britney Spears matter was

287
00:16:15,080 --> 00:16:19,120
Speaker 3: going on, people were paying attention, people were asking those questions.

288
00:16:19,400 --> 00:16:22,400
Speaker 3: You know, people I work with wanted to know, shouldn't

289
00:16:22,480 --> 00:16:25,640
Speaker 3: I be treated the same way as Britney Spears was.

290
00:16:25,680 --> 00:16:27,400
Speaker 3: In other words, there are lots and lots of people

291
00:16:27,400 --> 00:16:30,440
Speaker 3: who aren't pop stars who have lost their rights. Britney

292
00:16:30,440 --> 00:16:33,440
Speaker 3: got them back after a very long time. Other people

293
00:16:33,480 --> 00:16:37,520
Speaker 3: are asking why can't I have that same opportunity as

294
00:16:37,560 --> 00:16:40,240
Speaker 3: a pop star. So the short answer to your question

295
00:16:40,360 --> 00:16:43,440
Speaker 3: is yes. The longer answer is I hope it continues,

296
00:16:43,520 --> 00:16:46,520
Speaker 3: It's a conversation we need to have here.

297
00:16:46,520 --> 00:16:49,760
Speaker 1: The two weis are saying through their attorney that Or

298
00:16:50,040 --> 00:16:53,520
Speaker 1: attempted a shake down, and they have so much money

299
00:16:53,520 --> 00:16:56,440
Speaker 1: they don't need anymore. What kind of excuses do you

300
00:16:56,600 --> 00:16:58,080
Speaker 1: ordinarily hear in these cases?

301
00:16:58,640 --> 00:17:01,120
Speaker 3: I mean the vast majority of guardia it's coming involved money.

302
00:17:01,240 --> 00:17:04,320
Speaker 3: I mean we hear about ones that do. We hear

303
00:17:04,359 --> 00:17:07,400
Speaker 3: about Britney Spears, We hear about Michael Or in New York,

304
00:17:07,480 --> 00:17:10,399
Speaker 3: we hear about the artist Peter Mack. But the vast

305
00:17:10,440 --> 00:17:13,200
Speaker 3: majority of cases, the people who don't have that kind

306
00:17:13,200 --> 00:17:16,200
Speaker 3: of money. The people I represent and work with aren't rich.

307
00:17:16,480 --> 00:17:20,320
Speaker 3: They're just people who've lost their rights. So the comeback

308
00:17:20,560 --> 00:17:23,560
Speaker 3: usually is, this person needs a guardian, needs a conservative,

309
00:17:23,560 --> 00:17:25,840
Speaker 3: this person has a disability to this person has this

310
00:17:26,000 --> 00:17:28,160
Speaker 3: or has that, or needs this or needs that. It's

311
00:17:28,200 --> 00:17:30,800
Speaker 3: for their own good. Those are the things I hear.

312
00:17:31,400 --> 00:17:33,879
Speaker 3: I mean, the Michael Or case, the Britney Spears cases

313
00:17:33,880 --> 00:17:38,200
Speaker 3: are obviously higher profile because they involve famous people. They're

314
00:17:38,240 --> 00:17:41,600
Speaker 3: obviously higher profile because they involve people with money. But

315
00:17:41,640 --> 00:17:45,119
Speaker 3: I will tell you that ninety eight percent of the time, no,

316
00:17:45,440 --> 00:17:49,800
Speaker 3: it's just someone who someone meant well and thought they

317
00:17:49,840 --> 00:17:52,800
Speaker 3: needed something that maybe they didn't need. And what the

318
00:17:52,960 --> 00:17:56,359
Speaker 3: argument comes down to is whether a person truly needs

319
00:17:56,600 --> 00:18:01,480
Speaker 3: a guardianship of conservativeship or ever did the heartbreaking cases

320
00:18:01,520 --> 00:18:04,600
Speaker 3: where a child is competing against the parents. A young

321
00:18:04,640 --> 00:18:07,280
Speaker 3: woman I've represented named Jenny Hatch who was the first

322
00:18:07,320 --> 00:18:10,960
Speaker 3: person to defeat a petition for guardianship a trial because

323
00:18:10,960 --> 00:18:14,240
Speaker 3: she uses an alternative called supported decision making. It's horror

324
00:18:14,280 --> 00:18:17,480
Speaker 3: family apart because her family thought she needed a guardian

325
00:18:17,760 --> 00:18:20,639
Speaker 3: she didn't. Ten years later, she is still living free

326
00:18:20,720 --> 00:18:24,360
Speaker 3: and showing the example of what can happen when people

327
00:18:24,560 --> 00:18:27,240
Speaker 3: are empowered to make their own decisions. That's a very

328
00:18:27,280 --> 00:18:31,160
Speaker 3: long way of saying which people do things differently, celebrities

329
00:18:31,200 --> 00:18:34,399
Speaker 3: do things differently. The reasons we hear in a Michael

330
00:18:34,520 --> 00:18:37,320
Speaker 3: Orr case are very different and the reasons we hear

331
00:18:37,359 --> 00:18:40,760
Speaker 3: in most cases. And I hope cases like Michael Orr

332
00:18:40,800 --> 00:18:44,080
Speaker 3: and like Britney Spears shine a lights that help all

333
00:18:44,200 --> 00:18:47,359
Speaker 3: those other people, the ones who ask what about me?

334
00:18:48,119 --> 00:18:50,679
Speaker 3: What about the situation in my life? Who's going to

335
00:18:50,680 --> 00:18:55,280
Speaker 3: pay attention to that when that happens, will have a

336
00:18:55,320 --> 00:18:55,680
Speaker 3: new day.

337
00:18:56,440 --> 00:18:59,600
Speaker 1: It seems like people are put into guardianships a lot

338
00:18:59,600 --> 00:19:03,320
Speaker 1: of the time, time quickly and by default. How difficult

339
00:19:03,440 --> 00:19:05,840
Speaker 1: is it to get out of a guardianship for the

340
00:19:05,880 --> 00:19:07,119
Speaker 1: normal average person?

341
00:19:08,119 --> 00:19:13,320
Speaker 3: Hard, It takes time is usually usually the way out

342
00:19:13,400 --> 00:19:15,760
Speaker 3: of a guardianship or a conservativeship. And I keep us

343
00:19:16,000 --> 00:19:18,760
Speaker 3: two terms of changeably, by the way, they essentially mean

344
00:19:18,800 --> 00:19:20,600
Speaker 3: the same thing. It just means what they call it

345
00:19:20,640 --> 00:19:24,040
Speaker 3: in that state in California and Tennessee where Britain's There's

346
00:19:24,040 --> 00:19:27,040
Speaker 3: and Michael Orrar they refer to it as conservativeship. Most

347
00:19:27,080 --> 00:19:29,919
Speaker 3: other states call it guardianship. When you hear those terms,

348
00:19:30,000 --> 00:19:32,320
Speaker 3: just think one person giving the legal right to make

349
00:19:32,359 --> 00:19:35,720
Speaker 3: decisions for another. Usually the way out of those is

350
00:19:35,760 --> 00:19:37,960
Speaker 3: you have to show that you have quote unquote been

351
00:19:38,040 --> 00:19:42,600
Speaker 3: restored to competency, that you can now make decisions for

352
00:19:42,640 --> 00:19:46,240
Speaker 3: yourself and manage your own life for yourself. Well forever,

353
00:19:46,600 --> 00:19:50,280
Speaker 3: that term restored has kind of been viewed as cured,

354
00:19:51,200 --> 00:19:53,440
Speaker 3: and if you have an intellectual disability, if you have

355
00:19:53,480 --> 00:19:58,359
Speaker 3: a development disability, down syndrome, intellectual disability, servebral palsy, you

356
00:19:58,359 --> 00:20:02,240
Speaker 3: don't get cured. So the thought was if you went

357
00:20:02,320 --> 00:20:04,720
Speaker 3: into guardianship or conservatorship at eighteen you're going to be

358
00:20:04,720 --> 00:20:08,520
Speaker 3: into the rest of your life. Some of the ways

359
00:20:08,520 --> 00:20:11,520
Speaker 3: that we have used to work with people, it's to

360
00:20:11,560 --> 00:20:13,560
Speaker 3: show they never should have been in the first place,

361
00:20:13,600 --> 00:20:17,240
Speaker 3: that they've always had competency, or they've developed strategies and

362
00:20:17,280 --> 00:20:21,720
Speaker 3: support systems that give them that competency. But man, that

363
00:20:21,800 --> 00:20:25,159
Speaker 3: takes time. You have to have, usually an expert willing

364
00:20:25,200 --> 00:20:28,520
Speaker 3: to testify that this person can do it. Sometimes it

365
00:20:28,600 --> 00:20:31,600
Speaker 3: takes money. And again for the people I work with

366
00:20:31,680 --> 00:20:35,120
Speaker 3: and so many other people work with, that money isn't there.

367
00:20:35,200 --> 00:20:38,280
Speaker 3: We have to find other ways. So I tell people

368
00:20:38,320 --> 00:20:40,119
Speaker 3: the best way out is never to go in in

369
00:20:40,160 --> 00:20:44,040
Speaker 3: the first place, and if you want out, you have

370
00:20:44,119 --> 00:20:48,920
Speaker 3: to hope for a lot of good fortune and an

371
00:20:48,960 --> 00:20:50,000
Speaker 3: understanding judge.

372
00:20:50,560 --> 00:20:53,240
Speaker 1: What seems really odd to me about this is that

373
00:20:53,760 --> 00:20:57,080
Speaker 1: the conservatorship has been in effect for nearly two decades

374
00:20:57,200 --> 00:20:59,520
Speaker 1: and the two'es never sought to unwind it.

375
00:21:00,080 --> 00:21:03,320
Speaker 3: That's the biggest question for me. If they were just

376
00:21:03,680 --> 00:21:08,679
Speaker 3: never going to bother unwinding until it got spotlighted, what

377
00:21:08,720 --> 00:21:13,320
Speaker 3: does that say about the attitude towards this person's right.

378
00:21:14,160 --> 00:21:16,080
Speaker 3: They didn't think about it. If we give them the

379
00:21:16,080 --> 00:21:19,840
Speaker 3: best of motivations, they just didn't think about it. They thought,

380
00:21:19,960 --> 00:21:22,359
Speaker 3: you know, this is what's good for him, or we

381
00:21:22,440 --> 00:21:25,000
Speaker 3: never got around to unwinding it because no one ever

382
00:21:25,080 --> 00:21:30,199
Speaker 3: asked for me. Every guardian and every consertor's obligation and

383
00:21:30,280 --> 00:21:32,560
Speaker 3: this is written in most walls, by the way, is

384
00:21:32,600 --> 00:21:36,040
Speaker 3: to help the person, not just make decisions for the person,

385
00:21:36,280 --> 00:21:40,520
Speaker 3: but maximize that person's opportunities to make decisions, help that

386
00:21:40,600 --> 00:21:46,399
Speaker 3: person regain abilities or gain the abilities. And then if

387
00:21:46,400 --> 00:21:48,639
Speaker 3: the person has done it, if there comes a time

388
00:21:48,840 --> 00:21:51,240
Speaker 3: when the person no longer needs it. And certainly that

389
00:21:51,320 --> 00:21:53,720
Speaker 3: sounds like the family knew the situation in Michael Lare

390
00:21:53,840 --> 00:21:56,359
Speaker 3: because they're so willing to get rid of it. Well,

391
00:21:56,440 --> 00:22:00,280
Speaker 3: when you realize it's not needed, shouldn't your obligation to

392
00:22:00,280 --> 00:22:01,960
Speaker 3: be to go back to that judge you signed the

393
00:22:02,040 --> 00:22:05,200
Speaker 3: order in the first place and say, good news, Judge,

394
00:22:05,240 --> 00:22:09,880
Speaker 3: I did my job. Now you can fire me. If

395
00:22:09,920 --> 00:22:12,399
Speaker 3: we looked at guardianship of conservoship that way, you'd have

396
00:22:12,480 --> 00:22:15,359
Speaker 3: no bigger fan than me. Because some people do need

397
00:22:16,000 --> 00:22:19,080
Speaker 3: that level of assistance until they get it. Some people

398
00:22:19,200 --> 00:22:23,119
Speaker 3: do need extra support until they get it. What a

399
00:22:23,160 --> 00:22:25,480
Speaker 3: great system it would be if we would be able

400
00:22:25,560 --> 00:22:28,359
Speaker 3: to give people that support, and when they no longer

401
00:22:28,480 --> 00:22:31,760
Speaker 3: needed it to say I did my job, you can

402
00:22:31,800 --> 00:22:32,200
Speaker 3: fire me.

403
00:22:32,960 --> 00:22:38,639
Speaker 1: Being a lawyer trying to terminate these conservatorships sounds like

404
00:22:38,960 --> 00:22:40,560
Speaker 1: it might be a little bit depressing.

405
00:22:41,320 --> 00:22:43,160
Speaker 3: I've been practicing law for a very long time, and

406
00:22:43,200 --> 00:22:46,760
Speaker 3: I almost never see judges happy. Judges by definition, aren't

407
00:22:46,840 --> 00:22:48,720
Speaker 3: very happy. That's supposed to be happy. I'll tell you

408
00:22:48,800 --> 00:22:54,040
Speaker 3: when they're happy. Citizenship ceremonies, adoptions, marriages, and restoration of rights,

409
00:22:54,160 --> 00:22:56,440
Speaker 3: because in all of those, they're making a citizen, they're

410
00:22:56,440 --> 00:22:59,119
Speaker 3: making a family, they're giving people an opportunity, and judges

411
00:22:59,359 --> 00:23:02,159
Speaker 3: love that. So there's a lot of joy in this

412
00:23:02,359 --> 00:23:05,119
Speaker 3: amidst all the heartbreak, and I hope more people get

413
00:23:05,160 --> 00:23:05,680
Speaker 3: to experience.

414
00:23:05,720 --> 00:23:09,639
Speaker 1: But thanks Jonathan. That's Jonathan Martinez, Senior director for a

415
00:23:09,720 --> 00:23:13,480
Speaker 1: Law and Policy at the Burton Blatt Institute at Syracuse University.

416
00:23:15,119 --> 00:23:19,320
Speaker 1: A police raid on August eleventh brought international attention to

417
00:23:19,400 --> 00:23:23,919
Speaker 1: the Marion County Record, a weekly newspaper, and the small

418
00:23:24,000 --> 00:23:27,600
Speaker 1: Kansas town of nineteen hundred, putting it in the center

419
00:23:27,640 --> 00:23:32,480
Speaker 1: of a debate over press freedoms. Police seized computers, personal

420
00:23:32,560 --> 00:23:36,200
Speaker 1: cell phones, and a router from the newspaper. All items

421
00:23:36,200 --> 00:23:40,359
Speaker 1: were released Wednesday after the county prosecutor concluded there wasn't

422
00:23:40,440 --> 00:23:44,239
Speaker 1: enough evidence to justify the action. The police chief had

423
00:23:44,280 --> 00:23:48,320
Speaker 1: alleged in court documents that a reporter either impersonated someone

424
00:23:48,400 --> 00:23:51,760
Speaker 1: else or lied about her intentions when she obtained the

425
00:23:51,880 --> 00:23:55,960
Speaker 1: driving records of a local business owner. The newspaper's attorney

426
00:23:56,040 --> 00:23:59,399
Speaker 1: said the reporter's actions were legal under both state and

427
00:23:59,520 --> 00:24:03,600
Speaker 1: federal laws. Joining me is First Amendment law expert Eugene Vollock,

428
00:24:03,840 --> 00:24:07,480
Speaker 1: a professor at UCLA Law School. In this case, I

429
00:24:07,560 --> 00:24:11,080
Speaker 1: mean they came in, They collected computers, cell phones, and

430
00:24:11,119 --> 00:24:14,520
Speaker 1: other materials from the newspaper's office, the home of its

431
00:24:14,560 --> 00:24:19,320
Speaker 1: owner and editor. And it was based on an investigation

432
00:24:19,800 --> 00:24:24,800
Speaker 1: into how the newspaper got a document containing information about

433
00:24:24,840 --> 00:24:27,119
Speaker 1: a local restaurant owner in a two thousand and eight

434
00:24:27,200 --> 00:24:31,600
Speaker 1: conviction for drunk driving. Is this so unusual? And I

435
00:24:31,600 --> 00:24:34,000
Speaker 1: want to say overkills the only word I can think of.

436
00:24:35,080 --> 00:24:37,360
Speaker 2: Well, hard to know for sure whether it was overkill

437
00:24:37,440 --> 00:24:40,400
Speaker 2: or not without knowing all the facts. Although it does

438
00:24:40,480 --> 00:24:44,679
Speaker 2: look like even the government lawyers have concluded this was overkilled.

439
00:24:44,800 --> 00:24:47,440
Speaker 2: It does appear to be pretty unusual. Let's step back

440
00:24:47,440 --> 00:24:51,840
Speaker 2: a little bit. As a general matter, if somebody has

441
00:24:52,240 --> 00:24:56,159
Speaker 2: evidence of a crime, or more precisely, if there is

442
00:24:56,359 --> 00:24:59,919
Speaker 2: probable cause to believe that they have evidence of a crime,

443
00:25:00,600 --> 00:25:04,119
Speaker 2: then the government can get a search warrant to search

444
00:25:04,160 --> 00:25:09,000
Speaker 2: the property for this evidence. That's pretty routine, and newspapers

445
00:25:09,040 --> 00:25:13,240
Speaker 2: don't have any special First Amendment defense against these kinds

446
00:25:13,240 --> 00:25:18,119
Speaker 2: of searches, or to be precise, newspapers aren't categorically protected

447
00:25:18,160 --> 00:25:21,040
Speaker 2: by the First Amendment against these kinds of searches. There

448
00:25:21,080 --> 00:25:23,320
Speaker 2: was a case in the nineteen seventies called Zurcher we

449
00:25:23,440 --> 00:25:27,639
Speaker 2: Standford Daily, where a newspaper said, you can't search our files.

450
00:25:27,880 --> 00:25:30,800
Speaker 2: We're a newspaper, We're protected by the First Amendment. And

451
00:25:30,880 --> 00:25:33,520
Speaker 2: the court said, look, you don't get any more or

452
00:25:33,600 --> 00:25:36,800
Speaker 2: less protection under the First Amendment than anybody else. Now.

453
00:25:36,840 --> 00:25:40,840
Speaker 2: To be sure, whenever the government is searching for and

454
00:25:40,880 --> 00:25:44,399
Speaker 2: trying to seize First Amendment protected activity for example, or

455
00:25:44,480 --> 00:25:48,240
Speaker 2: First Amend protected materials for example, allegedly obscene literature or

456
00:25:48,240 --> 00:25:51,920
Speaker 2: some such there are some extra protections that are offered there,

457
00:25:52,040 --> 00:25:56,480
Speaker 2: but there's no categorical First or Fourth Amendment protection against

458
00:25:56,480 --> 00:26:00,640
Speaker 2: searches of bookstores or searches of newspapers in the life. However,

459
00:26:01,000 --> 00:26:06,080
Speaker 2: there is a federal statute that does provide some quite

460
00:26:06,160 --> 00:26:11,120
Speaker 2: broad statutory protection, and it says essentially that the government

461
00:26:11,200 --> 00:26:16,120
Speaker 2: may search and seize material that are related to possessed

462
00:26:16,119 --> 00:26:20,679
Speaker 2: by essentially newspapers, book publishers, and like only in very neurosurpus.

463
00:26:20,920 --> 00:26:23,000
Speaker 2: One of them is if there's reason to believe that

464
00:26:23,240 --> 00:26:26,199
Speaker 2: the person possessing them, say the newspaper, is committing a

465
00:26:26,280 --> 00:26:30,040
Speaker 2: crime or has committed a crime to which the materials relate,

466
00:26:30,359 --> 00:26:33,240
Speaker 2: and that crime has to be something beyond just received possession,

467
00:26:33,240 --> 00:26:36,760
Speaker 2: communication or withholding up the materials. So if people think

468
00:26:36,840 --> 00:26:41,080
Speaker 2: that the newspapers I don't know, engaged in tax evasion,

469
00:26:41,200 --> 00:26:43,639
Speaker 2: well then they can seize the records and maybe they

470
00:26:43,640 --> 00:26:46,480
Speaker 2: can even seize other materials that are related to what

471
00:26:46,560 --> 00:26:50,240
Speaker 2: the newspaper does in order to see if they're evading taxes.

472
00:26:50,560 --> 00:26:54,239
Speaker 2: If there's suspicions that the publisher of the newspaper has

473
00:26:54,280 --> 00:26:57,120
Speaker 2: committed some other crime, then in that case they could

474
00:26:57,119 --> 00:27:00,520
Speaker 2: search for evidence of that crime. But if the only

475
00:27:00,560 --> 00:27:02,960
Speaker 2: suspicion is, oh, this person maybe let's say, is the

476
00:27:03,000 --> 00:27:07,080
Speaker 2: recipient of an unauthorized leak, then that's not enough. There's

477
00:27:07,119 --> 00:27:10,720
Speaker 2: also an exception for situations where immediate seizure is necessary

478
00:27:10,720 --> 00:27:13,840
Speaker 2: to prevent death or serious bodily injury, and then a

479
00:27:13,960 --> 00:27:18,320
Speaker 2: couple of exceptions for situations where subpoenas don't seem likely

480
00:27:18,359 --> 00:27:22,560
Speaker 2: to succeed, therefore a search warrant is required. So under

481
00:27:22,600 --> 00:27:26,040
Speaker 2: the statue, generally speaking, of the government does think that

482
00:27:26,080 --> 00:27:29,639
Speaker 2: there's information that a newspaper possesses that, generally speaking, is

483
00:27:29,680 --> 00:27:32,480
Speaker 2: should proceed by a subpoena ordering the newspaper to turn

484
00:27:32,520 --> 00:27:35,280
Speaker 2: it over rather than through a search warrant.

485
00:27:35,520 --> 00:27:38,520
Speaker 1: So in this case, there was a search warrant that

486
00:27:38,640 --> 00:27:41,959
Speaker 1: was issued by a judge, but what was cited was

487
00:27:42,600 --> 00:27:47,400
Speaker 1: potential violation of laws involving identity theft and the illegal

488
00:27:47,520 --> 00:27:48,440
Speaker 1: use of a computer.

489
00:27:49,119 --> 00:27:52,240
Speaker 2: Well, it certainly does appear that the warrant was not

490
00:27:52,440 --> 00:27:55,520
Speaker 2: justified because again the local prosecutor's office, I want to

491
00:27:55,520 --> 00:27:58,600
Speaker 2: say it to the county attorney's office, has asked for

492
00:27:58,720 --> 00:28:02,359
Speaker 2: the warrant to be withdrawn because it concluded the Marion

493
00:28:02,440 --> 00:28:07,320
Speaker 2: County Attorney concluded that insufficient evidence exists to establish a

494
00:28:07,440 --> 00:28:10,879
Speaker 2: legally sufficient nexus between the alleged crime and the places searched.

495
00:28:10,920 --> 00:28:13,640
Speaker 2: And the item seized, which is to say that there's

496
00:28:13,680 --> 00:28:16,240
Speaker 2: no basis for a warrant, And again that should apply

497
00:28:16,359 --> 00:28:19,160
Speaker 2: regardless of whether it's a newspaper or not. Right, if

498
00:28:19,160 --> 00:28:22,400
Speaker 2: they searched my house for things completely unrelated to any

499
00:28:22,560 --> 00:28:24,919
Speaker 2: publishing work that I do, and it turns out that

500
00:28:25,000 --> 00:28:28,440
Speaker 2: there's no sufficient nexus between my house and any evidence

501
00:28:28,480 --> 00:28:31,480
Speaker 2: that they're looking for, that's an invalid warrant as well.

502
00:28:31,720 --> 00:28:34,600
Speaker 1: The newspaper says that it was investigating the police chief

503
00:28:34,600 --> 00:28:37,480
Speaker 1: and he had threatened to sue them, and that's why

504
00:28:37,600 --> 00:28:39,160
Speaker 1: this came about.

505
00:28:39,360 --> 00:28:40,840
Speaker 2: But right, I can't speak to that.

506
00:28:41,040 --> 00:28:44,600
Speaker 1: Right, But my question is if the police chief was

507
00:28:44,760 --> 00:28:50,040
Speaker 1: investigating how the newspaper got this information about a drunk

508
00:28:50,120 --> 00:28:53,200
Speaker 1: driving conviction in two thousand and eight, would that be

509
00:28:53,360 --> 00:28:55,400
Speaker 1: enough to get a warrant?

510
00:28:56,480 --> 00:29:00,160
Speaker 2: Well, let's say there's probable cause to believe that they

511
00:29:00,240 --> 00:29:03,640
Speaker 2: actually hacked into some computer. Then in that case there

512
00:29:03,640 --> 00:29:08,240
Speaker 2: would be enough presumably by a hypothesis, there's a probable

513
00:29:08,240 --> 00:29:10,680
Speaker 2: cause to believe that and probable cost to believe there's

514
00:29:10,720 --> 00:29:14,320
Speaker 2: evidence of that in the newspaper's records. In that case,

515
00:29:14,360 --> 00:29:17,200
Speaker 2: there'd be enough to satisfy the Fourth Amendment, because you

516
00:29:17,200 --> 00:29:20,360
Speaker 2: can get a warrant based on probable cause? What about

517
00:29:20,400 --> 00:29:25,080
Speaker 2: this federal statute forty two Usc. Two thousand and AA. Well,

518
00:29:25,400 --> 00:29:28,520
Speaker 2: one question is whether there's probable cause the person is

519
00:29:28,560 --> 00:29:33,160
Speaker 2: committing or has committed a crime beyond just receipt, possession, communication,

520
00:29:33,320 --> 00:29:35,480
Speaker 2: or with holding of the materials, And then there'd be

521
00:29:35,520 --> 00:29:39,320
Speaker 2: an interesting question, does for example, hacking into a government

522
00:29:39,360 --> 00:29:43,280
Speaker 2: computer involve more than just illegal receipt of information? Yes,

523
00:29:43,320 --> 00:29:46,360
Speaker 2: I'd say probably so, because that's illegal access to a

524
00:29:46,360 --> 00:29:49,520
Speaker 2: government computer. So you can imagine situations in which a

525
00:29:49,560 --> 00:29:52,680
Speaker 2: search world would be authorized both under the Fourth Amendment

526
00:29:52,760 --> 00:29:55,680
Speaker 2: and under this federal statute, and of course it would

527
00:29:55,720 --> 00:29:57,680
Speaker 2: have to comply with state law as well. It just

528
00:29:57,800 --> 00:30:01,480
Speaker 2: sounds like at this point the attorney has reviewed matters

529
00:30:01,520 --> 00:30:03,960
Speaker 2: and said, you know, there's just really not enough basis

530
00:30:03,960 --> 00:30:04,280
Speaker 2: for it.

531
00:30:04,680 --> 00:30:07,280
Speaker 1: Can the newspaper sue the police department?

532
00:30:07,360 --> 00:30:07,560
Speaker 3: Now?

533
00:30:07,760 --> 00:30:10,440
Speaker 2: Well, I think a lot depends on the particular circumstances.

534
00:30:10,440 --> 00:30:12,880
Speaker 2: I don't have enough facts to be able to speak

535
00:30:12,920 --> 00:30:16,320
Speaker 2: to that with confidence, but in principle, you could imagine

536
00:30:16,480 --> 00:30:18,760
Speaker 2: that they might be able to sue. To be sure,

537
00:30:19,200 --> 00:30:22,840
Speaker 2: if the police search pursued into a valid warrant, then

538
00:30:22,880 --> 00:30:25,840
Speaker 2: in that case, there's a good faith defense under the

539
00:30:25,880 --> 00:30:28,720
Speaker 2: Fourth Amendment. But let's say the police did not provide

540
00:30:29,160 --> 00:30:32,800
Speaker 2: accurate information, or the warrant was transparently invalid, or some

541
00:30:32,920 --> 00:30:35,880
Speaker 2: such an in principle, you could imagine such a lawsuit,

542
00:30:35,960 --> 00:30:38,320
Speaker 2: but we'd have to know a lot more factual detail.

543
00:30:38,960 --> 00:30:43,200
Speaker 1: It's understandable why so many media outlets were up in

544
00:30:43,320 --> 00:30:46,680
Speaker 1: arms about this. I mean, has this happened before? Have

545
00:30:46,800 --> 00:30:50,000
Speaker 1: we seen in recent times raids like this?

546
00:30:50,760 --> 00:30:53,920
Speaker 2: You know, I do not recall them. It's a big country,

547
00:30:53,960 --> 00:30:56,360
Speaker 2: and maybe there were some raids that didn't hit the

548
00:30:56,360 --> 00:30:58,680
Speaker 2: news or hit the news but didn't hit my consciousness.

549
00:30:58,720 --> 00:31:03,000
Speaker 2: But I do think it's quite unusual, generally speaking, partly

550
00:31:03,080 --> 00:31:06,520
Speaker 2: because of this federal statute and partly just because, you know,

551
00:31:07,040 --> 00:31:11,280
Speaker 2: government officials often want to be treated well by newspapers,

552
00:31:11,280 --> 00:31:13,640
Speaker 2: so they often treat the newspaper as well as well.

553
00:31:13,920 --> 00:31:16,360
Speaker 2: My understanding is these kinds of rates are very rare.

554
00:31:16,680 --> 00:31:18,800
Speaker 1: I mean, it could have stopped them from publishing because

555
00:31:18,840 --> 00:31:21,760
Speaker 1: they took the computers, they had to borrow computers.

556
00:31:22,320 --> 00:31:26,520
Speaker 2: According to news accounts, they actually managed to publish on

557
00:31:26,640 --> 00:31:29,400
Speaker 2: their normal publishing schedule. It was hard, but they managed

558
00:31:29,400 --> 00:31:31,640
Speaker 2: to do that. But yes, in principle, if they see,

559
00:31:31,640 --> 00:31:34,320
Speaker 2: if the computer sees all of the documents, it may

560
00:31:34,440 --> 00:31:37,640
Speaker 2: stop the newspaper from publishing. And there the Supreme Court

561
00:31:37,760 --> 00:31:40,160
Speaker 2: has said, yes, you know, if that's the issue that

562
00:31:40,280 --> 00:31:42,280
Speaker 2: might raise important First Amendment question.

563
00:31:42,680 --> 00:31:46,960
Speaker 1: There are so many questions here and the investigation is ongoing,

564
00:31:47,400 --> 00:31:51,160
Speaker 1: both on the state side and the newspapers side. Thanks

565
00:31:51,200 --> 00:31:55,840
Speaker 1: so much, Eugene. That's Professor Eugene Volik of UCLA Law School,

566
00:31:56,400 --> 00:31:58,720
Speaker 1: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

567
00:31:59,080 --> 00:32:01,400
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

568
00:32:01,480 --> 00:32:05,760
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

569
00:32:05,920 --> 00:32:10,960
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

570
00:32:11,360 --> 00:32:13,960
Speaker 1: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

571
00:32:14,000 --> 00:32:17,920
Speaker 1: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

572
00:32:18,040 --> 00:32:19,640
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg