Slashdot Mirror
Google Searches Used in Murder Trial?
mcrbids writes "Well, the details are a bit scant, but it seems that the content of Google searches were used to help establish intent in a murder trial. Will police in the future simply serve a subpoena to Google to find out what you've been thinking about? While this use of that information makes sense, at what point does your privacy give way to public concerns? Should police be able to search through your search history for "questionable" searches before you've been arrested for a crime, and what effect would this have on the health of society?"
Will police subpoena google? No, because in this case, the
search history was recovered from the local hard drive.
The information on the searches came from his browser history, not from Google.
From the article:
In other words, they looked at the files on his computer as evidence. That's been done for
Might they subpoena google in the future? Maybe, but that hasn't happened yet...
The article says "investigators continue to find new evidence on computers seized from Robert Petrick's home", suggesting that this information came from the familiar browser history feature rather than from Google's databases.
Since the defendant was already a suspect, reviewing his browser history is no different than searching his personal papers or anything else in his home.
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
Last week, a forensic investigator discovered that Petrick allegedly researched lake levels, water currents, boat ramps and access about Falls Lake just four days before he reported Sutphen missing on Jan. 22, 2003.
~http://www.wral.com/news/5287261/detail.html
Yes, the info was found on his hard drive, not acquired from Google or his ISP or anywhere else.
According to the article, this information was recoverd from his computer.
He was arrested based on evidence such as a neuse being found at his home, he has contridicted himself in his testimony, other searches revealed on his computer were for boat ramp and current info for the lake where the body was found and cadaver dogs picked up on scents at his house. He has already been found guilty of fraud for using his wife's name to obtain a loan after her dissappearance. Those are just the things to come out in the first week of testimony
He could have browsed from a live CD and not left a trail. I wonder how many crimes are being solved because criminals don't know how to take a few simple security steps?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
You mean you've forgotten about this already???
ummm... that's not what this trial is about at all.
It takes less than a minute to mug someone and get away with a wallet full of cash
It takes longer than that to come up with the plan, obtain the tools necessary, find the right place, sufficiently mask your identity, wait for a good target to come by, flee the scene, get rid of any evidence and then have a convincing alibi when all is said and done.
Not following all of those procedures (and probably more) will significantly increase your risk of getting caught. And all this for... what's the average amount of cash that people carry on them. Maybe $50? Sure, you can wait for victims which have a higher likelyhood of carrying more money, but then that simply takes more time, preperation and might put you in a more risky location (risky to the criminal, not necesarilly the victim.)
It is possible that you would get away with it at least once, probably even likely. But mugging people enough times to actually make a living off of it will draw a lot of suspicion and greatly increase your likelyhood of getting caught. Or finding that your mark is packing heat and pissed off.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman