The Ames Competition is one of the most prestigious competitions for appellate brief writing and advocacy in the country. The students participating in the Semi-Final Round started the competition in fall of this year, and rose to the final four spots through their strong research abilities and excellent written and oral advocacy.
This year’s competition will be held on the evenings of Wednesday, April 3, 2013, and Thursday, April 4, 2013, beginning at 6:00 p.m. in the historic Ames Courtroom of Harvard Law School.
April 3rd Argument Details:
Case: People of the State of Ames, Plaintiff-Respondent v. James McNulty, Defendant-Petitioner
Judges:
1. The Honorable Sandra Segal Ikuta, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
2. The Honorable Paul J. Watford, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
3. The Honorable Catherine C. Blake, United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Participating Teams:
The Martin D. Ginsburg Memorial Team, Petitioner
- Gerard Justin Cedrone, Oralist
- Jeremy Feigenbaum
- Caitlin Halpern
- Wookie Kim
- Ashwin Phatak, Oralist
- Jillian Sheridan Stonecipher
The Daniel K. Inouye Memorial Team, Respondent
- Patrick Brown, Oralist
- Andrew Sullivan
- Benjamin Tolman
- Sonal Mittal
- Nina Kovalenko
- Zach Howe, Oralist
Case Description:
Defendant James McNulty is an 18-year-old freshman at James Barr Ames University. In the early morning hours of January 1, 2012, McNulty was driving with his 16-year-old girlfriend, R.P., on the outskirts of Ames City. McNulty drove through a red light in view of Officer Russell Bell, and Officer Bell pulled him over. After approaching the car, Officer Bell thought McNulty appeared to have been using marijuana, and the officer asked McNulty to step out of the car.
As McNulty stepped out of the car, a bag of marijuana fell out of McNulty’s pocket and onto the ground. Officer Bell placed McNulty under arrest, and the officer searched McNulty’s pockets. During the search, Officer Bell found, among other things, McNulty’s iPhone 4S. Officer Bell then handcuffed McNulty, placed him in the back of his police car, and took him to the station for booking.
At the station, Officer Bell searched McNulty’s personal effects, including the iPhone. During the iPhone search, which was conducted without a warrant, Officer Bell turned first to the “recent calls” list, and he found nothing that indicated any serious criminal activity. Officer Bell then switched to the text message list, where he began glancing at the various texts that McNulty had sent and received. Officer Bell saw a two-line snippet of a message that said: “Hahaha. These are just in case you ever miss your sweet young high school girlfr . . .” Officer Bell clicked to open the entire message chain. There, Officer Bell found two pictures that R.P. had taken of herself and sent to McNulty earlier that night. R.P. was naked in at least one of the pictures, and both pictures were sexually suggestive.
Naked pictures that minors take of themselves and send to others via cellphone, commonly known as “sexts” or “sexting pictures,” were recently banned in the State of Ames. The new law banning sexting, which is known informally as Section 2802b, makes it unlawful for anyone in Ames over 18 to possess these “indecent visual depictions” of minors. For first-time offenders like McNulty, the new law carries with it a maximum sentence of six months in prison and the possible need to register as a sex offender.
State prosecutors in Ames did not bring any drug charges against McNulty, but prosecutors did charge him with violating the new anti-sexting law. In the trial court, McNulty fought the prosecution on two grounds. First, McNulty contended that the photographic evidence was illegally obtained because the cops did not have a warrant to search his phone. Second, McNulty argued the new anti-sexting law was unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s clause protecting Americans’ right to the freedom of speech.
The district court disagreed with both of McNulty’s arguments. With regard to the search, the district court ruled that the police did not need a warrant because police are allowed to search any object that an arrestee has in his or her pockets at the time of an arrest. The court ruled that this right to a warrantless search incident to an arrest includes electronic devices such as an iPhone. With regard to the First Amendment challenge, the district court determined that Section 2802b is constitutional because the U.S. Supreme Court has carved out an exception to the First Amendment for child pornography, which means that states such as Ames may regulate child pornography in any manner they wish. Since the new law covers visual depictions that fall under the unprotected category of pornographic images of minors, the district court ruled that the anti-sexting law is immune from any First Amendment attack.
After the district court ruled against him, McNulty pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three months in jail. McNulty then appealed the search and the First Amendment rulings to the Ames Court of Appeals, but the Court of Appeals agreed with the district court and affirmed his conviction.
Finally, McNulty asked the Ames Supreme Court to hear his case, and the Ames Supreme Court accepted review. Both questions are now before the Ames Supreme Court. Because McNulty is the party that asked the Supreme Court to review the case, he is the “Petitioner” in the Ames Supreme Court, and his counsel will argue first. The State of Ames is known as the “Respondent,” and the government’s lawyers, who are defending the validity of the conviction, will argue second. Counsel for McNulty will then have a chance to present a brief rebuttal argument.
Please click here for the Semi-Final Round Record.
Please click here to read the Petitioner’s Brief.
Please click here to read the Respondent’s Brief.
Please click here to read the Reply Brief for Petitioner.
April 4th Argument Details:
Case: Sari M. Saman, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Oliver Guitierez, et al., Defendants-Respondents
Judges:
1. The Honorable Ed Carnes, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
2. The Honorable Paul Engelmayer, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
3. The Honorable Peter J. Rubin, Massachusetts State Court of Appeals
Participating Teams:
The Constance Baker Motley Memorial Team, Appellant
- Nikolas Bowie, Oralist
- Alison Deich
- Dena Haibi
- Lucas Issacharoff
- Andrew Rohrbach, Oralist
- Kyle Wirshba
The Louis Henkin Memorial Team, Appellees
- Adam Cambier
- Geng Chen
- Aman George, Oralist
- Jesse King
- Jeremy Kreisberg
- Eden Schiffmann, Oralist
Case Description:
Sometime before 2003, several U.S. law enforcement agencies, as part of a Joint Terrorism Task Force, began investigating members of a charitable organization known as the Sariah Group out of suspicion that they were involved in financing international terrorist organizations. As part of that investigation, FBI Agent Oliver Guitierez began personally surveilling Sari M. Saman, a member of the Sariah Group living in northern Ames.
On July 15, 2009, Agent Guitierez was in his car surveilling Mr. Saman’s home. When he powered up his laptop, he noticed an unsecured wifi network in the vicinity, which he connected to. Upon connecting, Agent Guitierez noticed that certain files were being shared across the network. He opened the files, some of which appeared to documented transactions that, based on his experience, could have been records of transactions funneling funds abroad to terrorist organizations. Based on what he saw, Agent Guitierez obtained a warrant to search Mr. Saman’s home.
At approximately 6:00 a.m. on August 30, 2009, a team of six federal agents and two state officers arrived at Mr. Saman’s home to execute the search warrant. The agents approached Mr. Saman’s home in tactical formation. When they were about 70 yards from the home, one of the agents yelled “Compromise!”, believing that he saw an individual in an upstairs window of Mr. Saman’s residence. At that point, the agents rushed to Mr. Saman’s door and, immediately upon reaching the door, breached it with a battering ram. The agents then searched Mr. Saman’s home. They seized the wireless router that broadcasted the network Agent Guitierez previously connected to, as well as computers that contained the files that Agent Guitierez opened. Despite finding that evidence, the government never brought charges against Mr. Saman.
Mr. Saman brought suit against Agent Guitierez and the federal officers who executed the search warrant, alleging two separate violations of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. First, he alleged that Agent Guitierez committed an unconstitutional search by connecting to his unsecured wireless network and opening his files. Second, he alleged that the federal agents who executed the search warrant committed an unconstitutional search by failing to knock and announce their presence before breaching his door. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. According to the court, Mr. Saman had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his unsecured wireless network, so connecting to it and opening the shared files was not a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, the federal agents’ duty to knock and announce their presence was excused by the exigent circumstance of seeing an individual in the upstairs window of Mr. Saman’s home.
Mr. Saman has appealed that decision. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ames Circuit directed the parties to brief and argue the following questions:
- Whether the act of connecting to the plaintiff’s network and viewing his files was a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because it violated the plaintiff’s reasonable expectation of privacy, or otherwise under United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012).
- Whether the defendant federal agents’ failure to knock and announce their presence during the execution of the warrant to search the plaintiff’s home violated the Fourth Amendment.
Please click here for the Semi-Final Round Record.
Please click here to read the Petitioner’s Brief.
Please click here to read the Respondent’s Brief.
Please click here to read the Reply Brief for Petitioner.
For more information, please email ameshls@gmail.com.