United States of America v. Lacey Lee Koenig and Lee Graf

United States v Koenig and Graf

KOENIG VS . GRAF

United States vs . Koenig and Graf : A test of privacy (Name (School (Proffesor (Course

Abstract

A most basic right that people in a democratic society believe in the right to conduct their own affairs in private . This right is even enshrined in the fundamental law of the United States . This right has been sought to be interpreted and applied and re-interpreted in various forums , be it in self-interest or in protecting the greater good of the nation and its citizenry . But we

must not forget that in the application of this right , there are grounds that must be met by both sides , grounds that amount to whether the exercise of the right is correct or not

A right to privacy

Did the government act of bounds when it opened Ms . Lacey Lee Koenigs Federal Express package ? This seems to be the crux of the matter when Koenig sued for the suppression of the evidence in her case , the package containing the white powdery substance later detemined by the Drug Enforcement Administration to be cocaine (856 F .2d 843 . Koenig and her buyer , Lee Graf , were indicted by a grand jury for the narcotics (856 F .2d 843 . Koenig along with Graf , moved for the suppression of the evidence , saying the evidence was acquired through an illegal search (856 F .2d 843

Was Koenig , and later on Graf , correct in saying the evidence must be thrown out because of the process by which it was obtained ? Was there a violation of the rights of the defendants ? To find an answer , let us delve into some historical background on the right itself . The Founding Fathers , when the Constitution was being crafted , sought to address the eventuality of misinterpreting of these powers , they made a Bill of Rights for the proper application of the law (Harry Browne , 2003

Among these rights is the right to refuse conduct of any government search and seizure proceedings on your property without due process of law (Browne , 2003 . But in the constitution the term privacy 'is not specifically spelled out (Browne , 2003 . But does that mean that if a word is missing , the state can overlook this omission ? Not so , for the Constitution still affords that right in the Constitution , as laid down in the 10th Amendment (Browne , 2003

Graf fails to prove that he was the owner , sender or recipient of the package , hence could not avail of the protection afforded by the right (856 F .2d 843 . Koenig , on the other hand , contended that the government had to have a valid warrant to effect the search of her package (856 F .2d 843 , that the opening had violated the privacy of her package , hence her right to privacy (856 F .2d 843 . But Federal Express opened the package not under the control of the Federal government , thus extinuguishing the act of intervention by the government . Once opened in full unhindred view of DEA agents , the interest...