A Legal Analysis of the Search Warrants of the Amerithrax Investigation

Courtney Grafft
{"title":"A Legal Analysis of the Search Warrants of the Amerithrax Investigation","authors":"Courtney Grafft","doi":"10.1515/2154-3186.1040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract One of the nation’s most complex investigations in its history stemmed from the 2001 anthrax attack letters. Filled with dead-ends, false leads, and flustered FBI and Postal Inspection officers trying to grapple with intricate scientific details, the Amerithrax investigation caused many to question the efforts of America's forefront investigative entity. The specialized American bioweapons community remained in a constant state of paranoia from late 2001 to 2008, and over 30,000 members of the American Society for Microbiology received a letter indicating the high probability “that one or more of you know” the anthrax killer. Finally, in 2007 the Amerithrax Task Force named Dr. Bruce Ivins, a civilian bioweapons specialist at the United States Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), who only a few years before helped the officers sort through the complicated task of studying the weaponized anthrax, as the prime suspect. Investigative efforts ratcheted up in fall of 2007 when a series of warrants were issued to search Dr. Ivins’ home, office, and vehicles.Since the ratification of the Fourth Amendment in 1791, the United States has recognized the importance of a system with laws designed to prohibit unfettered investigations by the leaders of our country. This paper analyzes the search warrants utilized in the Dr. Ivins’ investigation and discusses the Fourth Amendment implications. First, a brief review of the state of America in September 2001 is detailed. Next, the paper discusses the facts of the Amerithrax investigation, including the mishap involving Steven Hatfill. Section III explains some Fourth Amendment search warrant basics before getting to the meat of this analysis: the actual search warrants of the Amerithrax investigation.","PeriodicalId":378562,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biosecurity, Biosafety and Biodefense Law","volume":"316 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biosecurity, Biosafety and Biodefense Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/2154-3186.1040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract One of the nation’s most complex investigations in its history stemmed from the 2001 anthrax attack letters. Filled with dead-ends, false leads, and flustered FBI and Postal Inspection officers trying to grapple with intricate scientific details, the Amerithrax investigation caused many to question the efforts of America's forefront investigative entity. The specialized American bioweapons community remained in a constant state of paranoia from late 2001 to 2008, and over 30,000 members of the American Society for Microbiology received a letter indicating the high probability “that one or more of you know” the anthrax killer. Finally, in 2007 the Amerithrax Task Force named Dr. Bruce Ivins, a civilian bioweapons specialist at the United States Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), who only a few years before helped the officers sort through the complicated task of studying the weaponized anthrax, as the prime suspect. Investigative efforts ratcheted up in fall of 2007 when a series of warrants were issued to search Dr. Ivins’ home, office, and vehicles.Since the ratification of the Fourth Amendment in 1791, the United States has recognized the importance of a system with laws designed to prohibit unfettered investigations by the leaders of our country. This paper analyzes the search warrants utilized in the Dr. Ivins’ investigation and discusses the Fourth Amendment implications. First, a brief review of the state of America in September 2001 is detailed. Next, the paper discusses the facts of the Amerithrax investigation, including the mishap involving Steven Hatfill. Section III explains some Fourth Amendment search warrant basics before getting to the meat of this analysis: the actual search warrants of the Amerithrax investigation.
Amerithrax案搜查令之法律分析
美国历史上最复杂的调查之一源于2001年的炭疽攻击信。对Amerithrax的调查充满了死胡同、错误的线索,慌乱的联邦调查局和邮政检查官员试图与复杂的科学细节作斗争,这让许多人质疑美国前沿调查机构的努力。从2001年底到2008年,美国生物武器专业团体一直处于一种偏执的状态,美国微生物学会(American Society for Microbiology)的3万多名成员收到了一封信,信中指出,“你们中有一人或多人知道”炭疽杀手的可能性很大。最后,在2007年,Amerithrax特别工作组将布鲁斯·艾文斯(Bruce Ivins)博士列为头号嫌疑人。他是美国陆军传染病医学研究所(USAMRIID)的一名民用生物武器专家,几年前他还帮助军官们梳理了研究武器化炭疽的复杂任务。2007年秋天,调查力度加大,当局签发了一系列搜查令,搜查艾文斯的家、办公室和车辆。自1791年批准第四修正案以来,美国已经认识到一个旨在禁止我国领导人不受约束地进行调查的法律制度的重要性。本文分析了艾文斯博士调查中使用的搜查令,并讨论了第四修正案的含义。首先,简要回顾2001年9月美国的状况。接下来,本文讨论了美国石油公司调查的事实,包括涉及史蒂芬·哈特菲尔的事故。第三节解释了第四修正案的一些搜查令的基础知识,然后才进入分析的核心:Amerithrax调查的实际搜查令。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信