No sorry, it means No text. I started something and then deleted it because of time constraints.
If you want to be technical about the topic there is no difference between LE and you or I
I had a case in the 8th District where the Judge agreed and forced the government to give me an image of the drive over their objections that me possessing the CP would be illegal. It was pretty interesting to say the least.
In 20 years of police work the one thing I have learned is nothing is for certain. Not even the rulings of the court. Of course I would have expected that type of ruling from the 9th Dist. not from the heartlands! In fact that would be a good question for this forum. What or how do the different courts handle the problem of discovery when it comes to turning over cp to the defendants. By the way, would you have the cite for the case, I would be interested in seeing how the judge addressed the issue.
BJ thanks for confirming my thoughts. However, I believe US v Carey is a little different from what Armresi was inquiring.
Jimmer
While that is true, the point of referencing that case was that if in the course of an investigation, you discover something outside the scope of the warrent, stop and get another warrent, which, in effect, would be going back of the chain of command and informing them of what was found, and determining the proper response.
bj
Here is something that may be right on the money. From Guidelines for Handling Illegal Material, http//
"Occasionally, organisations may have to deal with allegations of serious misuse of computers, where indecent images of children (as defined by the Protection of Children Act 1978) may be present on the organisation's computers. The posession of such images is a serious criminal offence and must be reported to the Police as soon as possible. Until the material can be handed to the Police, organisations need to act very carefully to avoid harm to their users or potential criminal liability for the organisation or its staff. UKERNA has developed the following Guidelines, with assistance from JANET sites and the Home Office, to assist sites in this situation."
"Viewing or handling indecent images of children will normally be a serious criminal offence. However, section 46 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 provides a limited defence for those who can prove that they needed to do so for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime. The CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) and ACPO (the Association of Chief Police Officers) have agreed an MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) setting out the factors they will consider when deciding whether this defence may be available in any specific case."
The MoU is available at http//
The major factors considered in the MoU are how the materials were discovered; how quickly the incident was reported and to whom; how the material was handled and secured; how many copies were made; and if the peson acted reasonably.
bj
Bigleas, I wonder why the US doesn't incorporate something to that effect. I see by your tag that your in Korea. How does Korean law address this issue?
Bigleas, I wonder why the US doesn't incorporate something to that effect. I see by your tag that your in Korea. How does Korean law address this issue?
Jimmer
I'm sure most countries have laws similar to this - the trick is finding them.
I'm not sure how the Korean's handle it, I work with the US Military. The MPs take CP very seriously, and a number of careers have been ended over it. In one recent case, the CP found on one soldier's system was planted by another soldier. It forensic team determined that the files were transfered via a pocket PC, which the suspect didn't own, and based on a timeline analysis, they were able to find the culprit.
bj
Now that must be interesting, trying to apply our laws while working in a different country. I assume that you work on a US base which of course is US soil. How do they handle the issue if a Korean National does something on the base. Are they subject to US law or do we turn them and the evidence over to the Korean Govt. for prosecution. If the latter, whose rules of evidence and accepted method of collection do you use?
I can not point to a specific law but I do know we are being taught in school to immediately stop an investigation and report any CP to the FBI. I will look again in my texts to see if i can find any more details.
How do they handle the issue if a Korean National does something on the base. Are they subject to US law or do we turn them and the evidence over to the Korean Govt. for prosecution. If the latter, whose rules of evidence and accepted method of collection do you use?
Jimmer
As you have guessed, it is a very complex process. We have a complex agreement called the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) that determined jurisdiction based on the nationality (US, Korea, other), location (onbase / offbase), status (Active duty, DOD, contractor, dependent), the type of offense, and the national security implications. It gets very messy, very quickly, and the resulting decisions are typically very polarized.
For a slight taste of the problems, see http//
bj