Research Paper: Case Briefs Related to Terrorism

Pages: 8 (2236 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: 4  ·  Level: College Junior  ·  Topic: Business - Law  ·  Buy This Paper


[. . .] Therefore, the arrest was based on individualized suspicion pursuant to warrant provided under the federal material-witness statute. Actually, material witnesses apprehended under this statute have similar constitutional right to pre-trial release as other government detainees. The release can be granted if their testimony can sufficiently be obtained through deposition and if further detention is not vital to prevent any failure of justice. Moreover, the petitioner did not breach clearly established law for qualified immunity reasons ("Ashcroft v. Kidd CB3," 2013).

Relation of Case to Terrorism-related Litigation:

The case demonstrates how material witnesses can be detained and used as part of prosecution of a terrorism-related litigation. These witnesses can be arrested and detained as long as there is individualized suspicion and detained in order to adequately secure their testimony. These measures do not violate the Fourth Amendment rule as long as it is clearly established during the arrest of the material witness.


Hacer Dinler, et al., Michael Schiller, et al., Deirdre Macnamara, et al., (plaintiffs-respondents) v. The City of New York, Raymond Kelly, Commissioner of the New York City Police Department, et al., (defendants-petitioners)


The plaintiffs filed actions against the City of New York and several individuals for allegedly violating their state and federal constitutional rights in light of mass arrests related to the demonstrations at the 2004 Republican National Convention (RNC). The lawsuit was based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and several provisions of state law as well as false arrest claims at Fulton Street and East 16th Street. Moreover, the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit based on policies of the City of New York in relation to fingerprinting and arrests on minor breaches during the RNC. The case was also geared towards eliminating the testimony by David Cohen, Deputy Commissioner of the New York Police Department on allegations that it was based on improper expert evidence.

Prior Proceedings:

The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit at the United States Court Southern District of New York challenging the fingerprint and detention practices used by the New York Police Department during the Republican National Convention in 2004. They argued that these practices violated the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution and other provisions of state law. The district court ruled that the police did not take enough measures to clear innocent bystanders from the street before the arrests and denied the motion to strike Cohen's testimony. Moreover, the court ruled that the fingerprinting policy violated the provisions of state law and constitutional rights. As a result, the New York City Police Department petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for writ of mandamus that challenged the district court's ruling ordering the undercover of police reports in civil rights action.

Issues Presented or Questions of Law:

The issue presented was whether the New York Police Department could obtain the writ of mandamus to conceal its surveillance and tactical strategy in arresting the respondents.

Arguments or Objectives of the Parties:

The NYPD argued that enforcing the district court's ruling could undermine the safety of police officers and weaken the capability of a law enforcement agency to carry out investigations in the future.

Holding/Rule of Law:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted the writ of mandamus and overturned the district court's ruling, which allowed the police department to keep secret its records of surveillance and tactical strategy pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a).


The Court of Appeals' ruling was based on the fact that plaintiffs did not show compelling need for undercover police reports in a manner that overshadowed the substantial public interest in nondisclosure. Secondly, the district court indisputedly blundered when ruling that law enforcement privilege did not protect the police reports to an extent that it would warrant a writ of mandamus relief ("Dinler v. City of New York CB4," 2013).

Relation to Terrorism-related Litigation:

The case demonstrates that law enforcement personnel and agency cannot be compelled to provide undercover reports of their surveillance and tactical strategy when dealing with terrorism activities unless there are sufficient reasons to warrant such disclosure.


"Ashcroft v. Kidd CB3." (2013, March 4). Westlaw -- Saint Leo University. Thomson Reuters.

"Dinler v. City of New York CB4." (2013, March 5). Westlaw -- Saint Leo University. Thomson Reuters.

"PMOI v. U.S. Department of State CB2." (2012). Westlaw --… [END OF PREVIEW]

Four Different Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?

1.  Buy the full, 8-page paper:  $28.88


2.  Buy + remove from all search engines
(Google, Yahoo, Bing) for 30 days:  $38.88


3.  Access all 175,000+ papers:  $41.97/mo

(Already a member?  Click to download the paper!)


4.  Let us write a NEW paper for you!

Ask Us to Write a New Paper
Most popular!

Terrorism Technological Innovation as a Weapon Thesis

Domestic Terrorism Has Become in Recent Decades Term Paper

Loss of Civil Liberties Due to International Terrorism Research Proposal

Terrorism and Policy Thesis

Department of Homeland Security a in Governmental Reorganization Case Study

View 225 other related papers  >>

Cite This Research Paper:

APA Format

Case Briefs Related to Terrorism.  (2014, July 13).  Retrieved July 20, 2019, from

MLA Format

"Case Briefs Related to Terrorism."  13 July 2014.  Web.  20 July 2019. <>.

Chicago Format

"Case Briefs Related to Terrorism."  July 13, 2014.  Accessed July 20, 2019.