Showing 911–920 of 2202

• 12/5/1986

  Application of Fourth Amendment to Use of Electronic Beeper in Tracking Bank Robbery Bait Money

  The warrantless monitoring by law enforcement personnel of electronic beepers hidden in bait money robbed from a bank probably does not constitute a "search" implicating the Fourth Amendment, even after the beeper being monitored has been taken into a home. One who has come into possession of beeper-monitored bank bait money by robbing a bank has no legitimate expectation of privacy in such money that would be violated by the beeper monitoring. Although this form of beeper monitoring probably does not constitute a search implicating the Fourth Amendment, it was recommended that the FBI should continue its practice of seeking a warrant when that form of monitoring is undertaken. However, because exigent circumstances justify the FBI's practice of commencing beeper monitoring immediately when a baited bank is robbed, the FBI is not constitutionally required to refrain from monitoring the beeper until it has obtained a warrant. The OLC does not provide release dates for its opinions, so the release date listed is the date on which the opinion was authored. The original opinion is available at www.justice.gov/file/23876/download.

  12/5/1986

• 10/28/1986

  Department of Labor Jurisdiction to Investigate Certain Criminal Matters

  The Attorney General may not delegate his authority to investigate labor crimes to the Secretary of Labor unless the Department of Labor has specific overlapping statutory authority to investigate those same offenses. Section 601(a) of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. § 521(a), precludes the investigation of violations of § 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 186, by the Department of Labor. Section 805(b) of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, 29 U.S.C. § 1136, did not alter the limitations on Department of Labor investigatory authority set forth in § 601(a) of the LMRDA. The OLC does not provide release dates for its opinions, so the release date listed is the date on which the opinion was authored. The original opinion is available at www.justice.gov/file/23871/download.

  10/28/1986

• 9/18/1986

  Application of the Mansfield Amendment to the Use of United States Military Personnel and Equipment to Assist Foreign Governments in Drug Enforcement Activities

  The Mansfield Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act provides that "no officer or employee of the United States may engage in or participate in any direct police arrest action in any foreign country with respect to narcotics control efforts." 22 U.S.C. § 2291(c). Although the question of what constitutes a "direct police arrest action" within the meaning of the Amendment is not unambiguously answered by the language of the statute, the legislative history demonstrates that Congress was animated by concern that United States officers and employees not participate directly in joint drug raids with foreign authorities. The Amendment should therefore be understood to prohibit participation in narcotics control activity that would under normal circumstances be likely to lead to the arrest of foreign nationals. It does not prohibit involvement of United States officers in activities that would not ordinarily involve arrests. The OLC does not provide release dates for its opinions, so the release date listed is the date on which the opinion was authored. The original opinion is available at www.justice.gov/file/23866/download.

  9/18/1986

• 9/8/1986

  Whether you may legally adopt a policy within the White House that would require an attorney from the Counsel's Office to be present during interviews of White House staff by congressional investigators

  White House counsel asked the OLC whether it could adopt a policy requiring required an attorney from the Counsel’s office to be present during interviews of White House staff by congressional investigators as a way to represent the institutional interests of the executive branch. The OLC concluded that the White House could legally adopt such a policy.

  9/2/2022

• 8/22/1986

  Assignment of Army Lawyers to the Department of Justice

  The Department of Justice may appoint Army attorneys as special attorneys or Special Assistant United States Attorneys enabling them to perform litigation functions assigned by law to Department of Justice attorneys, provided, however, that the salaries and expenses of Army lawyers so serving must be paid from the Department's own appropriation. The Department of Justice may use Army attorneys, performing the functions traditionally performed by "agency counsel," to assist the Department in its litigation functions; Army attorneys assisting the Department in this capacity may be paid with Army funds and need not be formally detailed to the Department. The use of Army lawyers to assist the Department of Justice may violate the Posse Comitatus Act where they perform prosecutorial functions involving direct contact with civilians, unless such Army lawyers are detailed to the Department on a full-time basis and operate under the supervision of Department personnel. The OLC does not provide release dates for its opinions, so the release date listed is the date on which the opinion was authored. The original opinion is available at www.justice.gov/file/23861/download.

  8/22/1986

• 8/12/1986

  Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Reporting Act of 1986

  Legislation authorizing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to subpoena employees of federal agencies not in compliance with EEOC annual reporting requirements and to seek enforcement of such subpoenas in federal court would violate the doctrine of separation of powers by undercutting the President's power to provide a single voice for the Executive Branch in the enforcement of the laws. One part of the Executive Branch may not sue another part, as there can be no case or controversy between agencies that are all subject to the direction and control of the President. The proposed legislation's expansion of EEOC litigating authority would also undercut the Attorney General's ability to speak for the Executive Branch with a single voice in the courts. The OLC does not provide release dates for its opinions, so the release date listed is the date on which the opinion was authored. The original opinion is available at www.justice.gov/file/23856/download.

  8/12/1986

• 7/9/1986

  Nominations for Prospective Vacancies on the Supreme Court

  Under Article II, § 2, cl. 2 of the Constitution, the appointment process for judges consists of three steps: nomination by the President, advice and consent of the Senate, and appointment by the President. A President may nominate, and the Senate may confirm, a person to an office in anticipation that the office will be vacant during the President's term of office. Confirmation without appointment does not confer any rights on the nominee; the President remains free to decide that he does not want to appoint a confirmed nominee. When the anticipated vacancy does not arise, no appointment of the confirmed nominee is possible. The OLC does not provide release dates for its opinions, so the release date listed is the date on which the opinion was authored. The original opinion is available at www.justice.gov/file/23846/download.

  7/9/1986

• 6/30/1986

  Compatibility of New York City Local Law 19 With Federal Highway Act Competitive Bidding Requirements

  New York City Local Law 19, which allows bidders who do not make the lowest bid to be awarded contracts in cases where the lowest bidder has not signed an anti-apartheid certificate, is incompatible with § 112 of the Federal Aid Highway Act, which requires that contracts for federally funded highway projects be awarded on the basis of competitive bidding. The Department of Transportation is therefore obligated to withhold funding for such contracts awarded subject to Local Law 19. When Congress elects to distribute federal funds to states it may attach conditions to their distribution and, so long as those conditions are valid and clearly expressed, a state has no sovereign right to obtain or retain those federal funds without complying with the stated conditions. The Act's conditioning of federal highway construction grants on compliance with competitive bidding requirements is valid and clearly expressed. By imposing disadvantages on a class o f responsible contract bidders, Local Law 19 discourages responsible contractors from bidding and undermines the competitive bidding process. This departure from competitive bidding procedures was not justified by considerations of costeffectiveness, as required by the Act. The OLC does not provide release dates for its opinions, so the release date listed is the date on which the opinion was authored. The original opinion is available at www.justice.gov/file/23841/download.

  6/30/1986

• 6/20/1986

  Application of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to Persons with AIDS, AIDS-Related Complex, or Infection with the AIDS Virus

  The Department of Health and Human Services asked the OLC several questions regarding the applicability of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to individuals who were diagnosed with AIDS, AIDS-related complex (“ARC”), or who tested positive for AIDS antibodies. The OLC concluded that Section 504 prohibited discrimination based on the disabling effects that AIDS and AIDS-related conditions had on those diagnosed with the disease. However, the OLC also concluded that an individual’s real or perceived risk of transmission to others was not a “handicap” that fell under the meaning of Section 504 of the Act, meaning that discrimination on the basis of risk of transmission was not prohibited.

  9/2/2022

• 6/3/1986

  Application of Emoluments Clause to Part-Time Consultant for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

  A part-time consultant for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission occupied a position of profit or trust under the United States such that he could not, consistent with the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, accept employment with a private domestic corporation to perform work on a contract with a foreign government. The OLC does not provide release dates for its opinions, so the release date listed is the date on which the opinion was authored. The original opinion is available at www.justice.gov/file/23836/download.

  6/3/1986