{"id":35511,"date":"2018-11-22T11:58:28","date_gmt":"2018-11-22T16:58:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=35511"},"modified":"2018-11-22T11:58:28","modified_gmt":"2018-11-22T16:58:28","slug":"wa-state-ags-civil-investigative-demand-to-a-company-did-not-unreasonably-intrude-into-private-affairs-or-violate-4a","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=35511","title":{"rendered":"WA: State AG&#8217;s civil investigative demand to a company did not unreasonably intrude into &#8220;private affairs&#8221; or violate 4A"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A company that consolidated student loans was required to comply with the Washington State Attorney General&#8217;s civil investigative demand (CID) under Wash. Rev. Code \u00a7 19.86.110. The company did not have a right against self-incrimination and the CID did not constitute an intrusion into private affairs for purposes of Wash. Const. art. I, \u00a7 7 or an unreasonable search or seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.courts.wa.gov\/opinions\/pdf\/D2%2050235-6-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf\">State v. Brelvis Consulting LLC<\/a>, 2018 Wash. App. LEXIS 2632 (Nov. 20, 2018).<\/p>\n<p>There was a substantial basis for crediting the CI because, based on his information, the officers surveilled and corroborated that drug dealing was likely going on at the defendant\u2019s house. Defendant also claims that defense counsel was ineffective for not making a Franks challenge. \u201cIn our view, the challenged statement is supported by the record and there is no indication that it was intentionally or recklessly false.\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.ohio.gov\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/2\/2018\/2018-Ohio-4629.pdf\">State v. Smedley<\/a>, 2018-Ohio-4629, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 4947 (2d Dist. Nov. 16, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A company that consolidated student loans was required to comply with the Washington State Attorney General&#8217;s civil investigative demand (CID) under Wash. Rev. Code \u00a7 19.86.110. The company did not have a right against self-incrimination and the CID did not &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=35511\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[114,20,81,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35511","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-privileges","category-probable-cause","category-subpoenas","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35511","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=35511"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35511\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":35513,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35511\/revisions\/35513"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=35511"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=35511"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=35511"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}