Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site abnjh.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!vaxine!wjh12!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!zehntel!ihnp4!mhuxl!abnjh!cbspt002 From: cbspt002@abnjh.UUCP Newsgroups: net.legal,net.micro Subject: Re: Computer Bulletin Boards Must Be Confiscated! Message-ID: <664@abnjh.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-Jun-84 13:24:58 EDT Article-I.D.: abnjh.664 Posted: Fri Jun 1 13:24:58 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 6-Jun-84 02:35:49 EDT References: <171@ssc-vax.UUCP> Organization: ATTIS, NJ Lines: 66 Xref: 422 1657T Jardine writes: >Perhaps the subject line is somewhat skewed, but it seems that in all the >fuss and feathers over the confiscation of the computer BB by the LAPD, no >one has looked for a cogent reason that would require such action. I am not >an attorney, but isn't it a requirement that when someone is charged with a >crime that sufficient evidence must be presented for both an indictment and >a conviction? Sufficient evidence to indict is far different and less stringent than that need to convict (depending on the jurisdiction). A judge at an indictment is primarily concerned with whether the police had probable cause, etc., to arrest, whether what evidence has been collected has been done so properly (not stepping on anybody's civil rights, entrapment, etc.), and whether the state has/will have enough evidence to try the accused in a court in front of a jury without making total fools of itself. > So person A commits an offense by leaving a message on person >B's computer bulletin board. If I, as the prosecuting attorney, want to >establish the fact that such a crime was committed, what kind of evidence >must I have? Right! I have to have proof that a message was transmitted >and I must be able to present its content. How do I go about acquiring the >custody of said evidence that is required to do my job? For indictment - A printout from the BB or Pactel records should suffice. For trial- Why not just ask the Sysop to be a witness for the prosecution? That way no property is confiscated. Unless of course the Sysop is unwilling to testify, on which case his records and he can be subpoenead. If he has altered the record, the Sysop is guilt of perjury and deliberate destruction of evidence. You can get at the truth without confiscating anything. > Maybe there are >other ways, but certainly a very straightforward method is to obtain a warrant >for the seizure of the computer BB system. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are around , thankfully, to protect us from just such totalitarian 'straightforward methods'. >I may not know exactly which portion >of the system contains the real evidence, but at least I know I've got my arms >around what is needed. You quite probably have your arms around a genuine 'fruit from the poisined tree' or in this case the whole tree. Conspirators and Sysop walk out free men since this evidence gets tossed at the indictment. >I wouldn't like to have my computer system confiscated either, but I don't >think I'd go around claiming that all Sysop's were going to be thrown in the >slammer simply for what was placed on their bulletin board system. What say >the legal beagles on the net? I say we are dealing with a very new area for the law to be in. Do bulletin boards have 1st amendment rights? Newspapers do, but TV's only partly do. Also, does the LAPD really have jurisdiction in this matter? Seems to me phone crime is a federal rap. In which case the LAPD shouldn't have been involved in a confiscation. I also say more details are needed... Marc Kenig ["maybe I should have been a lawyer...?"] ATT-IS (consultant), S. Plainfield