PSU89, when you get back to school, present the scenario that arashiryu was faced with as he described in the post above my last. I would be interested to hear what your proffesors say about that.
The DA was OK with the copy of evidence transfer and validation. Although I did not talk to her, I took the police dept's and the defense attorney's word.
IMHO, no laws / guidelines / forensic procedures were violated in this case. The DA, the defense attorney, the defendent and the police dept. were OK with a 3rd party validation.
I focused on the task rather than mistrust, suspicions or myths about defense attorneys, police depts etc. etc.
As for professor's opinions I can bet they will vary. But I can't wait to hear it.
Any defense attorneys ;~) or LE's reading this post have any comments?
My Security+ instructor said that if you have knowledge of a felony and do not report it, you have broken a law and possibly become an accessory of some type and that his advice would be to report any suspected felonious activity to LE. My Computer Forensics instructor was unavailable and I know he has 1st hand experience with this.
I am not sure how this affects your situation Arashiryu, because LE was already involved. Did they have knowledge of the CP before they gave it to you?
I seem to think that informing LE immediately is a good CYA move and let them instruct you on how to proceed.
None the less, this is an interesting topic. I look forward to more on this.
arashiryu, when it comes to dealing with lawyers, police etc. I think President Regan said it best……"Trust but verify". Yes, I have had defense attorneys lie to me. And yes I know of some police who have lied to defense attorneys. The legal field can often be a vicious world, especially in the computer forensic people as so many people, including attorneys and the courts, simply do not understand it.
I found some info on US Federal Law at
http//
Section 225A has info on CP, including exemptions,
and Section 2258 appears to say it must be reported.
I'm not a lawyer, so interpretation is left as an exercise to the reader. It would be interesting to find some reference cases on this to confirm whether or not examiners who report it are exempt.
Jimmer,
Does this mean that along with defense attorneys we shouldn't trust police?
I can't count the number of times something like this happens where an overzealous repair person puts someone elses freedom and more importantly life after freedom (after being labeled with the tag possessed CP) in jeopardy without proper training and sometimes just to enter the spotlight and be the hero.
Is Evidence that Porn was Downloaded Through Pop-Up Ads Sufficient for Computer Search Warrant?
That was the question confronted by the South Dakota Supreme Court inState v. Helland, S.D., No. 2005 SD 121, December 7, 2005.
The case arose after a computer repair technician told a police detective that he had seen images of child pornography on the defendant's computer. A judge later suppressed evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant on the ground that the detective deliberately or recklessly omitted material information from the warrant affidavit not only by failing to state that the files containing the images were stored in temporary Internet files, but also by not including technical information about temporary Internet files and pop-up software that would have alerted the issuing magistrate that such files might have been automatically loaded onto the defendant's computer without his knowledge. The suppression judge also held that the possibility that the images were loaded by pop-up software deprived the detective of probable cause to believe that the defendant was guilty of knowingly possessing child pornography.
FWIW I found this http//
That was the question confronted by the South Dakota Supreme Court in State v. Helland, S.D., No. 2005 SD 121, December 7, 2005.
The whole thing can be read at http//
One of the more interesting parts of that decision is
"Alarmed by what he saw, Elsing returned to Elbo Computing to discuss the details with his business partner. Elsing felt his discoveries might have triggered the provisions of SDCL 22-22-24.18,[4] the mandatory reporter statute that requires computer repair technicians to report suspected violations of child pornography laws. Ultimately, Elsing decided that the mandatory reporter provisions in SDCL 22-22-24.18 required him to contact the police given his discovery of images of child pornography in the temporary internet files on Helland’s computer."
SDCL (South Dakota Codified Law) 22-22-24.18 provides
Any commercial computer repair technician who has knowledge of or observes, within the scope of the technician’s professional capacity or employment, a film, photograph, video tape, negative, slide or other visual depiction of a minor whom the technician knows or reasonably should know to be under the age of eighteen, engaged in prohibited sexual acts or in the simulation of prohibited sexual acts, shall report the depiction to an appropriate law enforcement agency as soon as reasonably possible. The computer repair technician need not report to law enforcement depictions involving mere nudity of the minor, but shall report visual depictions involving prohibited sexual acts. This section may not be construed to require a computer repair technician to review all data, disks, or tapes delivered to the computer repair technician within the computer repair technician’s professional capacity or employment.
A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor. However, a violation of this section does not constitute grounds for a civil action for damages against any person.
Armresl, perhaps my view of defense attorneys is biased and jaded after years of watching how many of them operate. The simple fact is, the police are tied by various laws and are subject to reviews by the defendants and even uninvolved citizens, while defense attorneys can say or do most anything, and claim they have a duty to put on whatever defense, regarless of how ridiculous, defends his client. Additionally, no outside the courts, but the client, can or have the ability to lodge complaints or cause reviews of the attorneys actions.
As to overzealous techs turning people in. That I would not be concerned about. A quick view by the LE can prove or disprove whether cp exists. Remember, it is not our job as a forensic investigator to pass judgement. It is simply up to us to report what we see. If you start getting involved in making those type of decesions, eventually you will make a bad one. Then what?
One other thought. Has anyone ever seen where a picture of cp was downloaded in a popup? The vast majority of child porn is obtained, through news groups, private websites and emails etc. A site distributing cp through popups is not going to stay in business long…….