SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Justice Department is set to argue Wednesday before a federal appeals court that it may prosecute people for crimes based on evidence obtained from their computers—evidence that was outside the scope of an original probable-cause search warrant.
That's a big deal in today's digital age. Society has evolved to the point that many people keep all of their papers and effects co-mingled on their computer hard drives.
The highly nuanced legal dispute initially seems innocent enough. It concerns an accountant's tax evasion conviction and two-year prison sentence in 2012 that was based on a court-authorized search and imaging of his computer files. Stavros Ganias' files were copied as part of an Army overbilling investigation into one of his clients. Holding on to the imaged files for nearly three years, Connecticut authorities discovered fresh evidence unrelated to the initial search of the files and got new search warrants to investigate more of the accountant's mirrored files that were already in the government's possession. All the while, Ganias had subsequently deleted those files from his hard drives after the government had imaged them, according to court records.
The case asks how long the government can retain somebody's computer files—files that are unrelated to a court warrant. The accountant's lawyers said that once the government got what it needed regarding the accountant's client, the remainder of Ganias' files should have been purged. Federal prosecutors disagreed and said they retained the imaged files for numerous reasons, including for authentication purposes and to allow "the government to comply with its discovery obligations imposed by the Constitution."
What if it were a 3-D capture of all things in view while executing a search warrant — like a "cop-cam" on steroids?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mendax on Wednesday September 30 2015, @09:09PM
In theory there is nothing wrong with the police using evidence found in a legal search to prosecute you for a crime unrelated to the one for which the search warrant was obtained. For example, you are arrested for some non-drug offense, the police obtain a search warrant of your house, and find your stash of hash. They can prosecute you for that stash. Computer forensics necessarily requires a complete search of the hard disk, not knowing for certain where what they're looking for is going to be there. It's in these searches that kiddy porn is found on occasion, leading to another prosecution.
The issue here as I see it is just how long can the cops keep the data they take from you, even if it is just a copy? I'm going to watch this case with interest as it's a very important one. I'm going to guess that the court will say "indefinitely", because I'm a cynic, even though that's probably the wrong decision.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.