Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!dave
From: dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.micro,net.legal
Subject: Re: Computer Bulletin Board Confiscated
Message-ID: <4464@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 3-Jun-84 10:09:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.4464
Posted: Sun Jun  3 10:09:32 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Jun-84 11:22:42 EDT
References: <898@ihuxi.UUCP>
Organization: The Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 27

I do not have any knowledge of this situation other than what has been
posted to the net, but I would like to clear up a miconception which
has floated around through many postings.

It appears likely that the system was "confiscated" not as some form of
punishment by the LAPD but because the system and its records (and
having the entire system may be the only way the LAPD can be sure it
can reproduce the records) will ne required as evidence against the
person who left the "AT&T calling card number" on the system.
Alternatively, it may be needed as part of the investigation, so that
the police can determine who left the information.

This is quite different from "confiscating" as a form of punishment to
the system administrator, and has quite different legal implications.

If someone steals your tape recorder, and the police recover it, they
might keep the tape recorder as evidence for the trial, and only return
it after the trial. No-one suggests you've committed a crime. It's the
same principle.

(lrf, V nz n ynjlre)
Dave Sherman
Toronto
-- 

 dave at Toronto (CSnet)
 {allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave