Student`s Name

Student’sNameProfessor’snameCourseDateof SubmissionMayfieldv. theUnited States, 504 F.Supp.2d 1023 (2007)Facts:On March 1, 2004, a bombexplodedon a commuterTrain in Madrid, Spain.191 peoplewerekilled,and1600 sufferedcasualties.Fingerprints werediscoveredfrom thecrimescenein a plasticbagthat hadtheexplosivesdetonators. TheSpanish policesubmittedthefingerprints to theInterpol andlaterto theFBI. TheFBI ranautomated fingerprint identification,andtwenty fingerprintswerefeaturedin LFP#17. Mayfield fingerprint matchwasrankedfourth. Mayfield is a US citizen,formerarmypersonnel,bornin Oregon raisedin Kansas. Hehas neverbeenarrestedandthelasttimeheleftthecountrywasin 1994. TheFBI agentsandindependentagentsof courtconfirmedthatLFP#17 matchedtheMayfield fingerprint. Mayfield andhis familywereunder thesurveillanceof thegovernmentauthorities.TheSpanish policefailedto provethatMayfield fingerprints matchedLFP# 17, butthesefactswerenot recordedin theaffidavits.Mayfield wasarrestedon May 6, 2004 informationleakedto themediaabout his alleged connectionwith thetrainbombattack.Hewaslaterreleasedon May 20, 2004,whentheSpanish policeidentifiedthefingerprints to be of Algerian national,Ouhane Daoud.ProceduralHistory:The plaintiff accusedthedefendantof violatingtheir civilrightsunlawfularrest,imprisonment,illegalsearchesandseizureof personalproperty.Theplaintiff accusedthedefendantof releasinginformationinthegovernmentagenciesto themedia.Plaintiff motioned thecourtforinjunctive anddeclaratoryreliefagainst theaccused.Theplaintiff questionedtheconstitutionality of thesomepartsof thepatrioticactthat violatedtheir constitutionalright.Thedefendantappealedthecaseon thedismissof theAmended complaintandsummaryjudgmentmotionthat wererejected.Issue:Did thecourtmakea mistake inputtingawaythedefendantclaimto dismisstheAmended Complaint andrejectingthedefendant summaryjudgmentswerethedefendant claimsthatthecourtlackedjurisdictionto thematterof havingMayfield under surveillanceandin possessionof materialcollectedunder FISA?Holdingandjudgment:The trialdidnot errin dismissingthedefendantclaimto dismisstheAmended Complaint orCross Motion Summary. Thecourthadjurisdictionin thecasetheplaintiff remarkspurportedan ongoingcontroversyenablingadjudicateplaintiff remarkaccording to Article 3. Plaintiff wasableto showandestablishtheongoinginjurythat is concrete.Reason:The Court reasonedthatcontinued possessionof Mayfield’s materialsby thegovernmentagenciesobtainedby under authorityof FISA during thesurveillanceandtheir distributionto variousgovernmentagenciesconstituteda concreteinjuryto theplaintiff. Itwasheldthattheplaintiffcontinuedto experiencenegativeresultsof currentandongoinginjury.Theplaintiff injurywasrealandnot hypothetical,andthisfactmadetheclaimripefordecisionby thecourt.MyComments:The factthatthere wascontroversyin thecasemadeitbe under thejurisdictionof thecourt.Thefactplaintiff sufferedas a resultof thesensitiveandpersonalmaterialpossessionby thegovernmentagencieswassufficientforthecourtto rulefortheplaintiff.Also,theknowledgethat plaintiff wasnot theoneresponsibleforthebombingyet thegovernmentcontinuedto possesstheir propertyandhadthefamilyunder surveillancewasin violationof thefourth amendment.

Citedworks

MAYFIELDV.UNITED STATES

http://www.leagle.com/decision/20071527504FSupp2d1023_11449/MAYFIELD%20v.%20U.S.

“MAYFIELDV. UNITED STATES| Findlaw.” Findlaw.N.P.,n.d. web. 1 Nov.2015