Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 05:33 PM Jun 2013

NY court: Computer searches can threaten privacy

NY court: Computer searches can threaten privacy


NEW YORK (AP) - A federal appeals court warned Tuesday that authorities may have gone too far in their search of an ex-convict's computer, saying the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is irrelevant if every hard drive search is a green light to look at millions of files unrelated to a suspected crime.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan made the statement as it cast doubt on the legality of the investigation carried out against James R. Galpin Jr., a man serving nearly 48 years in prison in a child pornography case.

Galpin, 52, of Owego, N.Y., was sentenced Nov. 1, 2011 after he pleaded guilty to several counts of production of child pornography, committing a felony offense involving a minor while being required to register as a sex offender and possession of child pornography. Prior to his guilty plea, he moved to suppress all of the evidence, including images of child pornography found on his computer, digital cameras and digital storage devices.

A federal judge in Albany, N.Y., had agreed that the warrant used to gather evidence was overbroad and lacked probable cause to conduct a search for child pornography but ruled that the gathered evidence, which include child pornography, could be used against Galpin anyway because it was in "plain view" for investigators to find.


http://www.njherald.com/story/22682657/ny-court-computer-searches-can-threaten-privacy

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NY court: Computer searches can threaten privacy (Original Post) The Straight Story Jun 2013 OP
poorly written article geek tragedy Jun 2013 #1
I think this is the crux of it: The Straight Story Jun 2013 #2
I can see the file sharing argument. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #5
"Any and all computing or data processing software, or data" rug Jun 2013 #3
the warrant does seem overbroad, but I think the appeals court went too far the other way in saying geek tragedy Jun 2013 #6
If I read this right nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #4
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
1. poorly written article
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 05:36 PM
Jun 2013

What was the warrant for--to search the home or the contents of the computer hard drive?

How is a child rapist contacting his victims not probable cause to search his computer for child porn? If they were searching his computer and weren't looking for child porn, what on earth were they looking for?

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
2. I think this is the crux of it:
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 05:42 PM
Jun 2013

"As numerous courts and commentators have observed, advances in technology and the centrality of computers in the lives of average people have rendered the computer hard drive akin to a residence in terms of the scope and quantity of private information it may contain," she added.

Yet, the appeals court said, a house search has limitations because investigators cannot properly search for a stolen flat-screen television by rummaging through a medicine cabinet or search for false tax documents by viewing the suspect's home video collection.

"Such limitations are largely absent in the digital realm, where the size or other outwardly visible characteristics of a file may disclose nothing about its content," Swain wrote. "Once the government has obtained authorization to search the hard drive, the government may claim that the contents of every file it chose to open were in plain view and, therefore, admissible even if they implicate the defendant in a crime not contemplated by the warrant."

-----------------------------

So they can basically use anything at all they find on your computer to charge you with something even if they don't find what they were looking for with the warrant. So maybe a person does not have kiddie porn but illegally downloaded a movie (that is how I take it anyway) they could get you on that.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
5. I can see the file sharing argument.
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 06:05 PM
Jun 2013

But, the nexus between child abuse and child pornography possession/distribution/production is so strong and so established that it seems bizarre that the court is drawing this distinction.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
3. "Any and all computing or data processing software, or data"
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 05:50 PM
Jun 2013
The Search Warrant

3 On July 6, 2009, Tioga County Sheriff’s Department Senior Investigator Patrick
4 Hogan (“Hogan”) applied to the Owego Town Court for a warrant to search Galpin’s residence,
5 person, and vehicles for, inter alia, cameras, computers, cell phones, and any and all computing
6 or data processing software, “which may reveal evidence which substantiates violations of Penal
7 Law statutes, Corrections Law statutes and or Federal statutes.” Warrant Appl. 1, July 6, 2009.
8 In the warrant application, Hogan set forth the details of the investigation, including observed
9 interactions and communications with young males, and the fact that an internet provider had
10 revealed in response to a subpoena that the subscriber I.P. address associated with the “Medic
11 Guy” posting belonged to Galpin.
12 Based on this information, Hogan concluded in his application that Galpin was
13 “engaged in the use of the internet via MySpace and chat to lure juvenile males to the residence
14 for the purpose of engaging in sexual conduct, . . . using [his] cell phone to make contact with
15 and direct the pickup of juveniles, . . . [and] transport[ing] juvenile males to his residence.”
16 Warrant Appl. 2. Citing his training and experience, Hogan further proffered that “persons
17 involved in child sexual exploitation use the internet, cell phones and practices of becoming

1 juvenile friendly to groom juveniles for the purpose of engaging in sexual behavior with
2 children.” Warrant Appl. 2. In addition, Hogan made the following claim:
3 (I)t is reasonable to expect that upon execution of this warrant evidence will be
4 obtained that James Galpin Jr. is using his computer or other device[s] capable of
5 accessing the World Wide Web to include but not limited to computer’s [sic], cell
6 phones, game systems or ipod’s [sic] capable of communicating with other
7 persons, to post, chat, text, sending pictures or video’s [sic], or talk live and
8 evidence of such will be located at the residence or on the person, or vehicle of
9 James Galpin, Jr.
10 Warrant Appl. 3. Finally, again citing his training and experience, Hogan asserted that “persons
11 who engage in sexual predator behaviors do not provide current e-mail address’s [sic], user
12 names or passwords on their sexual offender registration to avoid detection of illegal activities
13 by Law Enforcement and to divert Law Enforcement to a plausible or legitimate e-mail which do
14 [sic] not contain any of the subjects [sic] illicit activities.” Warrant Appl. 3.
15 Upon being presented with the application, Town of Owego Justice Robert W.
16 Henning issued a warrant to search Galpin’s residence, vehicle, and person for property
17 “believed to contain evidence that will constitute, substantiate or support violations of NYS
18 Corrections Law, section 168-f subdivision four, NYS Penal Law and or Federal Statutes.”
19 Warrant 1, July 6, 2009. More specifically, the warrant, which did not incorporate the
20 application, authorized the seizure and subsequent search of:
21 1) Any Computers, central processing units, external and internal drives, storage
22 units or media terminals and video display units, together with peripheral
23 equipment such as keyboards, printers, modems, scanners or digital camera’s [sic]
24 and their internal or external storage media.
25
26 2) Any and all computing or data processing software, or data including but not
27 limited to hard disks, floppy disks, magnetic tapes, intregal [sic] RAM or ROM
28 units, and any other permanent or portable storage device(s) which may reveal
29 evidence and substantiates violations of the aforementioned NYS and federal
30 statutes.

1 3) The following records and documents, whether contained or stored on the
2 computer, magnetic tape, cassette, disk, diskette, photo optical device, or any
other storage medium: 34
5 a. Any access numbers, passwords, personal identification numbers
6 (PINS), logs, notes, memoranda and correspondence relating to
7 computer, electronic and voice mail systems, internet address’s
[sic] and/or related contacts.
8
9
10 b. Any computing or data processing literature, including, but not
11 limited to printed copy, instruction books, notes, papers, or listed
12 computer programs, in whole or in part.
13
14 c. Any audio or video cassette tape recordings, books magazines [sic],
15 periodicals, or other recorded or printed material, the possession
16 of which constitutes a violation of the aforementioned statutes of
17 the Laws of New York state or Federal Statutes.
18
19 d. Any and all photographs depicting sexual conduct by a child
20 and/or minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
21
22 e. Any records or correspondence relating to the possession,
23 transmission, collection, trading or production of the
24 aforementioned photographs.
25 Id.


http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/56edd441-4e7a-4430-8c29-653793f6eb7d/1/doc/11-4808_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/56edd441-4e7a-4430-8c29-653793f6eb7d/1/hilite/
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
6. the warrant does seem overbroad, but I think the appeals court went too far the other way in saying
Tue Jun 25, 2013, 06:06 PM
Jun 2013

that visual records of child sexual abuse were irrelevant to a search for materials in connection with possible child sexual abuse.

Certainly if they had caught him cheating on his taxes, the argument would make more sense.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»NY court: Computer search...