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.

Comments

FInally someone has a clue

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:FInally someone has a clue

[DarkOx]

He can more than likely proceeded civil claims against against the constabulary there. The thing is its up to him to do that and it may prove costly. If he wins he can probably stick the police department with reasonable court costs as well but he will never get his time back.

The moral of the story here folks is that are justice system is an adversarial one at all levels. You should never never cooperate unless you feel it is in YOUR near term; best interest to do so. Its never a good idea to help law enforcement simply out of some concept of civic responsibility you will only find yourself on the wrong end of it for your trouble. They have long forgotten (systemically not always individually there are plenty of good cops out there) their job is to serve and protect the people. They now mostly exist to serve government and its all controlling pervasive aims.

Re:FInally someone has a clue

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I wonder what would've happened if he resisted the seizure and told them he's keeping his laptop and explained he didn't do anything wrong.

They would have taken it anyway and arrested him for obstruction of justice. That charge would not have been thrown out, regardless of whether or not the court order was later found to be illegal.

You don't get to pick and choose which court orders you respect, you have to challenge them in a proper forum.

Re:FInally someone has a clue

[Firethorn]

BUT, there's legal assumptions as long as there's reason to believe the warrant's valid.

IE You challenge it in court, not on site.

Same with false arrest - sure, the arrest can be ruled illegal later, along with various penalties and payments, but you're still going to be screwed if you resist arrest.

I think it's along the 'two wrongs don't make a right', and that you don't want people resisting arrest/warrants left and right on the basis that they're invalid - before their invalidity is proved in court.

Heck, this ruling is still subject to appeal - overruling at higher courts is still possible.

Is he gonna get compensated?

[Zapotek]

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."?

Re:Is he gonna get compensated?

[squarooticus]

Compensation for what? In the modern Western world, quaint notions of property rights and due process have been deprecated in favor of civil forfeiture, eminent domain for transfer to other private parties, stare decisis, and political connections.

You can't really own property anymore so much as lease it from the government for a yearly fee. (If you disagree with this viewpoint, try not paying your property taxes: then you'll find out who the real owner is.) Therefore, since the government owns all your stuff anyway, they have no need to compensate you for damages, since the government only damaged their own stuff.

</snark>

Re:Is he gonna get compensated?

[selven]

Speaking of 24, I love how the one person who tried to express concern for the Bill of Rights (this is around 02:00-05:00 in the bioweapon crisis) was portrayed as a villain who only wants to slow the police down and kill thousands of innocent people.

Re:Retaliation

[Lord Dreamshaper]

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.