From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...
United States v. Stringer
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
535 F.3d 929 (2008)
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated a civil investigation for securities fraud against Kenneth Stringer, Mark Samper, and William Martin (defendants) and their company, FLIR Systems, Incorporated (FLIR). Two weeks after the SEC investigation began, the SEC started meeting with the Oregon United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) (plaintiff) to coordinate the SEC’s investigation with a potential criminal investigation by the USAO. As a result, the USAO and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) opened a criminal investigation. Pursuant to federal law, the SEC granted access to its investigative files to the USAO. The SEC communicated with the USAO and FBI as both the civil and criminal investigations progressed, with the SEC turning over documents that it collected to the USAO and FBI. Stringer, Samper, and Martin were all early targets of the USAO’s investigation. FLIR began cooperating with the SEC investigation. The USAO, wanting to avoid disrupting the SEC investigation, decided to wait to convene a grand jury. In the meantime, the USAO instructed the SEC on how best to facilitate a criminal investigation. They kept great care in keeping the criminal investigation secret. That being said, the SEC did provide written notice (Form 1662) attached to the subpoenas sent to Stringer, Samper, and Martin that any information gained during their investigation could be shared with other government agencies. Form 1662 also advised the three men of their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, which the three men did not invoke at their depositions. At Stringer’s deposition, Stringer’s attorney questioned the SEC attorney regarding potential criminal investigations. Without lying, the SEC attorney gave evasive and vague answers to Stringer’s attorney. Later, Samper and Martin agreed to consent decrees with the SEC. Eventually, the three men were criminally indicted for securities violations. The district court dismissed the criminal indictments and suppressed evidence obtained by the SEC, reasoning that the government had violated the men’s due-process rights through deceitful conduct. The government appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Schroeder, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 604,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.