Slashdot Mirror
Judge Says Boston Student's Laptop Was Seized Illegally
You may remember a case we discussed this April in which a Boston College student's computers and other electronics were seized after he allegedly sent an email outing another student as gay. The search warrant made sure to note the student's ever-so-suspicious use of "two different operating systems," one of which was "a black screen with a white font which he uses prompt commands on." Now, the EFF reports that a Massachusetts judge has thrown out the search warrant and declared the search and seizure illegal. Quoting: "In her order Thursday, Justice Margot Botsford rejected the Commonwealth's theory that sending a hoax email might be unlawful under a Massachusetts computer crime statute barring the 'unauthorized access' to a computer, concluding that there could be no violation of what was only a 'hypothetical internet use policy.' Thursday's decision now stands as the highest state court opinion to reject the dangerous theory that terms of service violations constitute computer 'hacking' crimes. Justice Botsford further found that details offered by police as corroboration of other alleged offenses were insufficient and did not establish probable cause for the search." The court order (PDF) is available for viewing, and the EFF has broken down the significant arguments against the Commonwealth's claims.
IANAL.
The first think I would do in this guy's situation is to sue the city under the premise that since the search warrant was illegal, all activities flowing from the warrant were performed outside of the city's normal police powers. Since the activities were carried out without any authorized police powers, they were also carried out without the normal protections granted police during the lawful execution of their duties.
Potential charges would be:
1) Breaking and entering.
2) Trespassing.
3) Illegal search and seizure.
4) Theft of personal property.
5) Possession of stolen property.
6) Vandalism.
7) Unlawful entry.
8) False arrest.
9) False imprisonment (note that this doesn't require actually being jailed).
10) Dereliction of duty.
The next two would also be levied against whatever organization the city hired to peruse through my files:
11) Unauthorized access to a computing device.
12) Circumvention of a copy-protection mechanism (my user and root passwords).
I'm sure I could come up with more if I did some research.
Of course, they had a warrant to do so. In most parts of the country having a warrant is sufficient to shield from liability. The check to the police action is in the process of getting the warrant. If the warrant turns out to be bunk, the police aren't going to get into trouble unless they provided false evidence.
Misinterpreting evidence is not sufficient in most cases.
Wrong. The judge didn't revoke the search warrant - she ruled that it had never been legal in the first place.
--
The earth's orbit is an ellipse, with the sun at one of the two focal points. WHAT IS AT THE OTHER FOCAL POINT?
In response to your sig:
The other focal point orbits the sun in a circular orbit very slowly AFAICT.
$ make available
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-military-tells-jack-bauer-cut-out-the-torture-scenes--or-else-436143.html
"The United States Military Academy at West Point yesterday confirmed that Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan recently travelled to California to meet producers of the show, broadcast on the Fox channel. He told them that promoting illegal behaviour in the series - apparently hugely popular among the US military - was having a damaging effect on young troops.
According to the New Yorker magazine, Gen Finnegan, who teaches a course on the laws of war, said of the producers: "I'd like them to stop. They should do a show where torture backfires... The kids see it and say, 'If torture is wrong, what about 24'?"
Every 20 something guy with a uniform and a gun from Campus Cop to 1LT now thinks they are Jack Bauer. Yes, this is a problem.
either way the person should have just sued for slander/liable/defamation.... the cops should have known the matter was not theirs to deal with.
I believe that defamation only includes telling lies. Telling people that a certain presidential candidate used illicit drugs is not defamation if in fact the person did inhale. That candidate may not bring up defamation charges but only qualify or clarify the situation, such as pointing out how it happened long ago, the person completed rehabilitation, and/or the candidate feels such a substance should no longer be controlled as strictly.
Off topic but pertinent to my example:
I find it odd how many of our elected officials feel the need to demonize certain substances because "it will ruin your life" or "it's so powerful no one can truly be free from its influence" when so many of them and their colleagues have been known to take these substances in the past. By this logic getting elected president is "ruining your life" and these elected officials are still taking cocaine, marijuana, or what have you. Considering the state of our nation I would tend to believe that many of these elected officials are in fact still taking drugs as it is difficult to explain some of their actions otherwise.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
People aren't even compensated for time spent in a jail cell!
They typically are when it is longer periods due to a wrongful conviction.
A man in San Diego, CA awarded $100/day for the time he spent in a jailcell
A man in boston served 18 years, eligible for up to $500,000
An Australian man seeks 7.5 Million in damages from 12 years served, West AU offering 3.25
Not that I dont agree the lost time thing will ever work, just wanted to point out that people are infact compensated for jailtime they didnt deserve