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.
Now when does he get his equipment back? What happens when they hand him a box of busted parts and walk away? (Like Steve Jackson Games)
It is great that we have this victory for our rights. But how do we keep the police from doing it over and over again? The out of control police need oversight to make sure they don't do this again!
Or can the police kick down your door, seize whatever they want and when the court deems their actions as illegal they just say "Oops, our bad."?
no law degree here, either, but I assume a civil suit would be laughed out of court. The police officers acted in good faith because a judge signed their warrant, and, presumably, the judge the signed the warrant in a good faith belief that a) the details provided by the police were truthful, and b) the details provided by the police were sufficient to justify a warrant
The fact that a higher court struck it down is proof of "the system works" and there is no case unless you can prove maliciousness on behalf of the judge (alone or in collusion with the police). Maliciousness *solely* on the part of the police would never fly since the judge signed off on the warrant.
When all of your wishes have been granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed - Marilyn Manson
The tax they increased was a sales tax, a regressive tax. (Meaning those with the least ability to pay are affected the most.) Plus, last I checked, Massachusetts was a rather small state and fairly close to New Hampshire, with no sales tax, and Connecticut and Vermont, with lower sales taxes.
So, to help with a reduced overall consumer spending, Massachusetts decided to force business into neighboring states because it's cheaper there. Brilliant!
Also, I hate to break it to you, but in November us citizens voted overwhelmingly *AGAINST* a tax decrease.
Thanks to a giant disinformation campaign - including statements from the governor that repealing the income tax would change Massachusetts into Darfur. You also forget to mention that before that, the ballot measure nearly passed in 2004 - which is why there was a giant disinformation campaign in 2008)
extensive crews to salt / deice during the winter, road and pothole repair folks to avoid soil creep issues, ..... ect?
I find that statement hilarious because New Hampshire has no personal income tax - and yet their roads are kept in far better condition and their snow removal is far superior to Massachusetts. Why do you need high taxes for that, again?
Hold on that seems way too circular to be Kosher.
The police are acted in good faith, because they assumed the judge would act in good faith, at the same time the judge was acting in good faith because he assumed the police were acting in good faith? How do you ever get a mis-deed out of that set of conditions?
Somebody screwed up, an innocent man had his stuff seized for no good reason (being a linux user of all things). I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that there should be no repercussions for those involved. The police weren't competent to handle the matter and the judge wasn't competent to issue the warrant. Someone needs to be held accountable for the damaged they caused, "I didn't mean to hurt anyone" is a weak excuse for a common man, but no way in hell should that fly for those that are supposed to be trained in law enforcement.
A Free Market requires informed intelligent consumers, such people are rare, we're in trouble.