US Prosecutors Say Clearing Browser Data Can Be Obstruction of Justice

The Nation reports that 24-year-old Khairullozhon Matanov, an associate of the since-convicted Tsarnaev brothers, faces charges not of conspiring with the Tsarnaevs, but of obstructing justice, and one aspect of the actions he took should probably concern anyone who has crossed paths online or in real life with subject of law enforcement scrutiny, and subsequently cleared their browser history. From the article: The feds finally arrested and indicted him in May 2014. ... There were three counts for making false statements based on the aforementioned lies and—remarkably—one count for destroying "any record, document or tangible object" with intent to obstruct a federal investigation. This last charge was for deleting videos on his computer that may have demonstrated his own terrorist sympathies and for clearing his browser history. What about using incognito mode?

Comments

Linkydinky

[tsa]

Link.

Re:Link?

[ewhenn]

In case anyone says RTFA, here it is for your enjoyment: http://www.thenation.com/artic...

Not unusual.

[LoyalOpposition]

one aspect of the actions he took should probably concern anyone who has crossed paths online or in real life with subject of law enforcement scrutiny, and subsequently cleared their browser history.

Once you learn of an investigation or a law suit, or can be reasonably expected to know one is coming, it's incumbent upon you to save all records. This is well established, and has been in existence for quite some time. It's not something new with browser history. With browser history, though, it's going to be slightly tougher to prove that it was for the purpose of obstructing the investigation, rather than his normal course of activity. His erasure of videos will help law enforcement prove that, though.

~Loyal

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Neither is this disclaimer. Neither is the disclaimer of the disclaimer ad nauseam.

Nothing to see here, move along.

[Spazmania]

If you destroy or dispose of something because you believe it likely that prosecutors will seek that something as part of an criminal investigation, you have destroyed evidence and are obstructing justice. It doesn't matter whether that "something" is a piece of paper, a computer browser history or your baby tooth that fell out when you were six. Your suspicion that prosecutors will want that item makes its destruction a crime.

And like any crime, the prosecutor will have to prove it in court... not just that you wiped the browser history but that the reasonable explanation why you wiped the browser history was to prevent the authorities from gaining access to it. Actus rea -- wiping the browsing history. Mens rea - intending to hide something from police. The prosecutor has to prove BOTH to get a conviction.

Re:Nothing to see here, move along.

[ScentCone]

We have had publicized double jeopardy (supposed to be unconstitutional) since OJ

Getting acquitted in a criminal trial (no matter how appropriately or, in his case, ridiculously) has never made one immune to civil suits. Being subsequently sued for wrongful death by the family of your victim isn't "double jeopardy." It wasn't before the Simpson case, and it isn't now.

He did face subsequent criminal charges, on other matters. And he's in jail now for breaking into a hotel room (armed!) and a series of issues surrounding that event.

people with money never go to jail

People like OJ Simpson, you mean? Or Bernie Madoff? Or Phil Spector? Or Martha Stewart?

Most never face charges, let alone a trial or hearing. If they face a hearing, it's usually a closed door Grand Jury who magically and consistently decides that they should not be charged.

So pretty much you're just making stuff up. That's OK, but at least admit it.

Re:Deleting videos

[s.petry]

She did not get caught deleting 30,000, she was caught deleting EVERYTHING EXCEPT 30,000. We don't know, and never will know how many emails she really deleted. Hillary is not the only Public Servant (har har) to do this and not face charges. Members of the IRS "lost" emails, as did members of the ATF, DEA, GSA. Then we have other people that didn't lie about it and simply refused to hand over information, like NSA, CIA, FBI, DoJ, GSA, DEA, IRS, etc.. etc...

Re:You might want to brush up on your legal studie

[s.petry]

No, it's not an extremely high standard. That is a constitutional defined basic standard. If a person is "not guilty" of a crime they can not be responsible for damages from that crime. That does not take rocket science level thought to understand, and prior to OJ who exactly was tried for similar civil damages for a crime they were found not guilty of? I await your list.