Feds on Twitter | 2702 Short Cut Search Warrant

What about the Feds on Twitter?
Most Twitter multimedia is handled by 3d party links. Twitter allows both public or private updates. On Twitter Direct messages are private and the sender can delete these messages. the feds noted that short URLs used to serve malicious links and code. Today we learned the feds will seek to recover direct messages and that when Twitter receives the request, they will comply and disclose that such a request has been made.
The Feds frequently use a 2702 request to short cut Search Warrant requirements. On the other hand, as of 2010, Yahoo has the following policy on 2702 requests from cybercrime investigators:
“Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2702(b)(7) and 2702(c)(4) Yahoo! is permitted, but not required, to voluntarily disclose information, including contents of communications and customer records, to a federal, state, or local governmentalentity if Yahoo! believes in good faith that an emergency involving imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires such disclosure without delay.”

Forfeiture – Innocent Owner Defense – Feds Lose Summary Judgment

Forfeiture - Innocent Owner Defense - Feds Lose Summary Judgment

Innocent Owner Defense

Forfeiture of Ford Tow Truck
Federal Forfeiture Attorney in Tampa Florida has been following a case prosecuted by The United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, where the Tampa Division just lost a Motion for Summary Judgement in a case involving an Innocent Owner claim to a Tow Truck. The Court ruled “To prevail on a third-party claim under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A), a petitioner must show that she had a legal interest in the property and the interest vested in the claimant instead of the defendant. See 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A). However, “[a] third-party claimant … must have more than bare legal title to the forfeited property.” United States v. Hovind, No. 3:06cr83/MCR, 2009 WL 2369340, at *4 (N.D. Fla. July 29, 2009).”

 

“In the Eleventh Circuit, possession of bare legal title without the right to exercise dominion and control over the property is insufficient to prove ownership. See A Single Family Residence Located at 900 Rio Vista Blvd., 803 F.2d 625, 630 (11th Cir. 1986).”

 

The Federal Court in the Middle District of Florida recently “reviewed all evidence, factual inferences, and reasonable doubts about the facts in a light most favorable to the respective non-moving party. The core issue in this case is simply whether The vehicle’s owner voluntarily surrendered the Tow Truck to the Defendant, and, therefore, transferred her ownership interest in the Tow Truck”.

 

“The court reviewed surrounding the circumstances of when the [name omitted] discovered the Tow Truck was stolen, and when she reported to the police and the insurance company that the Tow Truck was stolen. Specifically, the United States highlights that the owners’s “original” version of events simply defies plausibility in light of all of the other independent evidence.”

 

However, the United States asserts that since the owner has become educated in the Government’s position in this case by review of the United States’ original Summary Judgement Motion (Dkt. No. 155), the owner has drastically changed her statements in this case in an effort to create a genuine issue of fact.

 

“Based upon review of the record, the United States’ argument is not without merit, but nonetheless the Court finds that, given the nature of this matter, it is more appropriate to resolve this dispute upon the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing rather than upon a summary judgment motion.”

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, it is ORDERED that:

1. the United States of America’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 167), and Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 177); Motion to Strike “Exhibit D” (Dkt. No. 174); Motion to Strike “Exhibit F” (Dkt. No. 175); and Motion to Strike “Exhibit G” (Dkt. No. 176) are DENIED, and

2. the evidentiary hearing in this case shall go forward as scheduled for January 10, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 10A, United States Courthouse, 801 N. Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida.

Are you an innocent owner in a Forfeiture Case, an Innocent Owner of property the Feds want to Seize? Call Me Toll Free at 1-877-793-9290.

Source: Federal Forfeiture Innocent Third Party Owner Middle District Florida Case 8:09-cr-00110-JDW-AEP Document 199 Filed 01/07/11(Names Omitted)

The Statute Provides:

18 USCS § 983 (d) Innocent owner defense.

(1) An innocent owner’s interest in property shall not be forfeited under any civil forfeiture statute. The claimant shall have the burden of proving that the claimant is an innocent owner by a preponderance of the evidence.

(2) (A) With respect to a property interest in existence at the time the illegal conduct giving rise to forfeiture took place, the term “innocent owner” means an owner who–

(i) did not know of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture; or

(ii) upon learning of the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture, did all that reasonably could be expected under the circumstances to terminate such use of the property.

(B) (i) For the purposes of this paragraph, ways in which a person may show that such person did all that reasonably could be expected may include demonstrating that such person, to the extent permitted by law–

(I) gave timely notice to an appropriate law enforcement agency of information that led the person to know the conduct giving rise to a forfeiture would occur or has occurred; and

(II) in a timely fashion revoked or made a good faith attempt to revoke permission for those engaging in such conduct to use the property or took reasonable actions in consultation with a law enforcement agency to discourage or prevent the illegal use of the property.

(ii) A person is not required by this subparagraph to take steps that the person reasonably believes would be likely to subject any person (other than the person whose conduct gave rise to the forfeiture) to physical danger.

(3) (A) With respect to a property interest acquired after the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture has taken place, the term “innocent owner” means a person who, at the time that person acquired the interest in the property–

(i) was a bona fide purchaser or seller for value (including a purchaser or seller of goods or services for value); and

(ii) did not know and was reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture.

(B) An otherwise valid claim under subparagraph (A) shall not be denied on the ground that the claimant gave nothing of value in exchange for the property if–

(i) the property is the primary residence of the claimant;

(ii) depriving the claimant of the property would deprive the claimant of the means to maintain reasonable shelter in the community for the claimant and all dependents residing with the claimant;

(iii) the property is not, and is not traceable to, the proceeds of any criminal offense; and

(iv) the claimant acquired his or her interest in the property through marriage, divorce, or legal separation, or the claimant was the spouse or legal dependent of a person whose death resulted in the transfer of the property to the claimant through inheritance or probate, except that the court shall limit the value of any real property interest for which innocent ownership is recognized under this subparagraph to the value necessary to maintain reasonable shelter in the community for such claimant and all dependents residing with the claimant.

(4) Notwithstanding any provision of this subsection, no person may assert an ownership interest under this subsection in contraband or other property that it is illegal to possess.

(5) If the court determines, in accordance with this section, that an innocent owner has a partial interest in property otherwise subject to forfeiture, or a joint tenancy or tenancy by the entirety in such property, the court may enter an appropriate order–

(A) severing the property;

(B) transferring the property to the Government with a provision that the Government compensate the innocent owner to the extent of his or her ownership interest once a final order of forfeiture has been entered and the property has been reduced to liquid assets; or

(C) permitting the innocent owner to retain the property subject to a lien in favor of the Government to the extent of the forfeitable interest in the property.

(6) In this subsection, the term “owner”–

(A) means a person with an ownership interest in the specific property sought to be forfeited, including a leasehold, lien, mortgage, recorded security interest, or valid assignment of an ownership interest; and

(B) does not include–

(i) a person with only a general unsecured interest in, or claim against, the property or estate of another;

(ii) a bailee unless the bailor is identified and the bailee shows a colorable legitimate interest in the property seized; or

(iii) a nominee who exercises no dominion or control over the property.

The Florida Statute Provides:
932.701Short title; definitions.—
(1)Sections 932.701-932.706 shall be known and may be cited as the “Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.”
(2)As used in the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act:
(a)“Contraband article” means:
1.Any controlled substance as defined in chapter 893 or any substance, device, paraphernalia, or currency or other means of exchange that was used, was attempted to be used, or was intended to be used in violation of any provision of chapter 893, if the totality of the facts presented by the state is clearly sufficient to meet the state’s burden of establishing probable cause to believe that a nexus exists between the article seized and the narcotics activity, whether or not the use of the contraband article can be traced to a specific narcotics transaction.
2.Any gambling paraphernalia, lottery tickets, money, currency, or other means of exchange which was used, was attempted, or intended to be used in violation of the gambling laws of the state.
3.Any equipment, liquid or solid, which was being used, is being used, was attempted to be used, or intended to be used in violation of the beverage or tobacco laws of the state.
4.Any motor fuel upon which the motor fuel tax has not been paid as required by law.
5.Any personal property, including, but not limited to, any vessel, aircraft, item, object, tool, substance, device, weapon, machine, vehicle of any kind, money, securities, books, records, research, negotiable instruments, or currency, which was used or was attempted to be used as an instrumentality in the commission of, or in aiding or abetting in the commission of, any felony, whether or not comprising an element of the felony, or which is acquired by proceeds obtained as a result of a violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.
6.Any real property, including any right, title, leasehold, or other interest in the whole of any lot or tract of land, which was used, is being used, or was attempted to be used as an instrumentality in the commission of, or in aiding or abetting in the commission of, any felony, or which is acquired by proceeds obtained as a result of a violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.
7.Any personal property, including, but not limited to, equipment, money, securities, books, records, research, negotiable instruments, currency, or any vessel, aircraft, item, object, tool, substance, device, weapon, machine, or vehicle of any kind in the possession of or belonging to any person who takes aquaculture products in violation of s. 812.014(2)(c).
8.Any motor vehicle offered for sale in violation of s. 320.28.
9.Any motor vehicle used during the course of committing an offense in violation of s. 322.34(9)(a).
10.Any photograph, film, or other recorded image, including an image recorded on videotape, a compact disc, digital tape, or fixed disk, that is recorded in violation of s. 810.145 and is possessed for the purpose of amusement, entertainment, sexual arousal, gratification, or profit, or for the purpose of degrading or abusing another person.
11.Any real property, including any right, title, leasehold, or other interest in the whole of any lot or tract of land, which is acquired by proceeds obtained as a result of Medicaid fraud under s. 409.920 or s. 409.9201; any personal property, including, but not limited to, equipment, money, securities, books, records, research, negotiable instruments, or currency; or any vessel, aircraft, item, object, tool, substance, device, weapon, machine, or vehicle of any kind in the possession of or belonging to any person which is acquired by proceeds obtained as a result of Medicaid fraud under s. 409.920 or s. 409.9201.
(b)“Bona fide lienholder” means the holder of a lien perfected pursuant to applicable law.
(c)“Promptly proceed” means to file the complaint within 45 days after seizure.
(d)“Complaint” is a petition for forfeiture filed in the civil division of the circuit court by the seizing agency requesting the court to issue a judgment of forfeiture.
(e)“Person entitled to notice” means any owner, entity, bona fide lienholder, or person in possession of the property subject to forfeiture when seized, who is known to the seizing agency after a diligent search and inquiry.
(f)“Adversarial preliminary hearing” means a hearing in which the seizing agency is required to establish probable cause that the property subject to forfeiture was used in violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.
(g)“Forfeiture proceeding” means a hearing or trial in which the court or jury determines whether the subject property shall be forfeited.
(h)“Claimant” means any party who has proprietary interest in property subject to forfeiture and has standing to challenge such forfeiture, including owners, registered owners, bona fide lienholders, and titleholders.

Forfeiture – Innocent Owner Defense

Cops GPS Tracking | Hit and Run | Florida | Tampa | St Petersburg

316.027, 316.061, 316.062, LEAVING SCENE OF A CRASH WITH INJURY

LEAVING SCENE OF A CRASH WITH INJURY

GPS Hit and Run
A St. Petersburg Police Department Officer was acquitted when he went on trial for hit and run in his police car. During the trial there was testimony that “exposed some embarrassing revelations for the St. Petersburg Police Department when [the cop] testified that he disabled the tracking device on his police cruiser several times so that his superiors couldn’t tell where he was or how fast he was going.”

 

Other cops said that “it’s no secret” how to disable the devices, according to the St. Petersburg Times. Notably, we recently used the patrol car GPS to question the credibility of a police officer in a DUI case. The GPS data is sometimes embedded in the DUI videos made in patrol cars used by DUI squad cops.

If you have been charged with TRAF2012 Leaving Scene Of A Crash With Injury you can call a Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer at 1-877-793-9290 and tell me your story.

Form Code: TRAF2012

Florida Statute: 316.027.1A
Level: Fel (Felony)
Degree: 3rd
Description: Leaving Scene Of A Crash With Injury

316.027 Crash involving death or personal injuries.

(1)(a) The driver of any vehicle involved in a crash occurring on public or private property that results in injury of any person must immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the crash, or as close thereto as possible, and must remain at the scene of the crash until he or she has fulfilled the requirements of s. 316.062. Any person who willfully violates this paragraph commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
316.061 Crashes involving damage to vehicle or property.
(1)The driver of any vehicle involved in a crash resulting only in damage to a vehicle or other property which is driven or attended by any person shall immediately stop such vehicle at the scene of such crash or as close thereto as possible, and shall forthwith return to, and in every event shall remain at, the scene of the crash until he or she has fulfilled the requirements of s. 316.062. A person who violates this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

316.062 Duty to give information and render aid.

(1)The driver of any vehicle involved in a crash resulting in injury to or death of any person or damage to any vehicle or other property which is driven or attended by any person shall give his or her name, address, and the registration number of the vehicle he or she is driving, and shall upon request and if available exhibit his or her license or permit to drive, to any person injured in such crash or to the driver or occupant of or person attending any vehicle or other property damaged in the crash and shall give such information and, upon request, exhibit such license or permit to any police officer at the scene of the crash or who is investigating the crash and shall render to any person injured in the crash reasonable assistance, including the carrying, or the making of arrangements for the carrying, of such person to a physician, surgeon, or hospital for medical or surgical treatment if it is apparent that treatment is necessary, or if such carrying is requested by the injured person.

 

(2)In the event none of the persons specified are in condition to receive the information to which they otherwise would be entitled under subsection (1), and no police officer is present, the driver of any vehicle involved in such crash, after fulfilling all other requirements of s. 316.027 and subsection (1), insofar as possible on his or her part to be performed, shall forthwith report the crash to the nearest office of a duly authorized police authority and submit thereto the information specified in subsection (1).

 

(3)The statutory duty of a person to make a report or give information to a law enforcement officer making a written report relating to a crash shall not be construed as extending to information which would violate the privilege of such person against self-incrimination.

(4)A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in chapter 318.

 

 

Source: https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/police-officers-testimony-exposes-practice-of-disabling-gps-trackers/1141567

Destruction of Evidence | Jury Instruction | Criminal Case | Rare Ruling

Spoliation of Evidence, Jury Instructions, spoliation, destruction of evidence, electronic discovery,

Spoliation of Evidence Jury Instructions

Destruction Jury Instruction

“You may infer from the Government’s failure to preserve these messages, or the fact that they were deleted by agents, that the missing text “messages were relevant to this case and that they were favorable to both Defendant[s]”


Penalties for Destruction or Spoliation of Cyber Evidence


Tampa Cyber Crime Attorney just received this tip from a source. “A recent non-published opinion [for your convenience we have published it below] from the District of New Jersey (United States v. Suarez, 2010 WL 4226524 (D.N.J. Oct. 21, 2010)) will be of interest for those who are following issues involving electronic discovery in criminal cases. In this case, the court imposed an adverse jury instruction against the government when it failed to preserve text messages that were sent between FBI agents and a cooperating witness. The instruction allowed the jury to infer (though did not require) that the deleted messages were favorable to the defendant.

“this is one of the first known cases to address spoliation of electronic discovery in the criminal context”


The issue of spoliation of evidence is frequently litigated in civil electronic discovery cases, but this is one of the first known cases to address spoliation of electronic discovery in the criminal context. Though the opinion is not for publication, counsel will want to consider that communications between agents and witnesses can often [sic] be in electronic form, and to remember this reality with when they or the defense team communicates with their own witnesses. It is hard to say what affect the jury instruction had in this instance, but it is worth mentioning that Mr. Suarez was ultimately acquitted.”


Spoliation US v. Suarez Complete Opinion



Download is Here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1koPGBr1eYQOHzBeXXChiL3ZR0iS1SXUP/view?usp=sharing

Spoliation Case Excerpts:


“The key considerations for determining the appropriate spoliation sanction (e.g., dismissal, suppression, fines, or an adverse inference instruction) are:
(1) The degree of fault of the party who altered or destroyed the evidence;
(2) The degree of prejudice suffered by the opposing party; and
(3) Whether there is a lesser sanction that will avoid substantial unfairness to the opposing party and, where the offending party is seriously at fault, will serve to deter such conduct by others in the future.
Schmid v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp., 13 F.3d 76, 79 (3d Cir.1994).”

“The Court finds the adverse inference instruction appropriate because:

(1) The text messages were within the Government’s control;
(2) The text messages were intentionally deleted by the agents, and the U.S. Attorneys’ Office failed to take steps to preserve them;
(3) The text messages that were deleted or not preserved were relevant to claims or defenses; and
(4) It was reasonably foreseeable by the Government that in the context of this investigation and in light of the actions of the cooperating witness the text messages would later have been discoverable.

These findings by the Court fall squarely within the four elements set forth in Mosaid Technologies Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 348 F.Supp.2d 332 (D.N.J.2004). Under Mosaid, the Court may only give an adverse inference instruction based on spoliation if the following elements are satisfied:

(1) The evidence in question must be within the party’s control;
(2) It must appear that there has been actual suppression or withholding of the evidence;
(3) The evidence destroyed or withheld was relevant to claims or defenses; and
(4) It was reasonably foreseeable that the evidence would later be discoverable.
348 F.Supp.2d at 336.”

“Thus, given the F.B.I.’s analogous preservation duty under Vella and Ammar and the failure of the Government to preserve relevant data in the midst of an ongoing investigation specifically aimed at prosecution, and thus where litigation was reasonably anticipated, the Government had a duty to preserve the Jencks material contained in the text messages.”


Destruction of Evidence | Jury Instruction | Spoliation


“At the close of evidence, the Court will issue the following charge to the jury:

 
During the course of this trial you have heard evidence by way of stipulation and testimony that during the Government’s investigation of Defendants, the cooperating witness, Solomon Dwek, exchanged numerous text messages with F.B.I. agents supervising the investigation. The Government was obligated to preserve all of these text messages, but they were either deleted by the agents themselves or not preserved by the Government. Specifically, although some text messages were in fact preserved, the Government failed to preserve other text messages, which pertained to Agent Russ and Agent McCarthy, from two key time periods: March 1 through March 16, 2009 and the entire month of July 2009. You may infer from the Government’s failure to preserve these messages, or the fact that they were deleted by agents, that the missing text messages were relevant to this case and that they were favorable to both Defendant Suarez and Defendant Tabbachino. You are not required to make this inference, however, and you must consider any rebuttal evidence that has been offered by the Government with regard to this issue. Whether you ultimately choose to make the inference is your decision as the finder of fact.”

Surveillance Cameras in Tampa Florida

Eye on Crime
Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney notes that twenty surveillance cameras were installed in an area bounded by Fowler Avenue, Bearss Avenue, Nebraska Avenue and Bruce B. Downs Boulevard. The cameras offer 360-degree views of street corners and parking lots. Arrests have been made during the cameras’ test runs.

Camera Surveillance Questions? Ask Me at 1-877-793-9290


 

“I hate to use the anecdote ‘It’s like shooting fish in a barrel,’ but it is,” Deputy Burton of the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office said. According the Tampa Tribune, “The cameras were funded with a $1 million federal grant called Eye on Crime. The University Area is a pilot project for Hillsborough County, but the cameras are used in other cities such as Chicago and New York.”

According to the Sheriff, “Twenty cameras, remotely operated by deputies, will be watching out for the safety of residents in the University Community neighborhoods. The cameras will be mounted on utility poles at various locations. The cameras are in a tinted dome; a box, emblazoned with the Sheriff’s Office star on three sides for added visibility, will sit atop the cameras. Each box will be fitted with an amber strobe light to draw attention to its purpose and position. The camera project is called Eye On Crime. The project has been about two years in the making. By this summer, the cameras will be operating, allowing deputies to keep an eye on trouble spots, monitor streets for emergency situations and give residents a better feeling of safety.”


The portable cameras are high-resolution cameras and record 24 hours a day. Images are stored for 30 days and are monitored from the sheriff’s office’s district station. Deputies may also will be able to see views from the cameras in their cars and in a helicopter.


Camera Surveillance Questions? Ask Me at 1-877-793-9290


Source: https://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/apr/09/university-area-gets-view-surveillance-cameras/news-breaking/

Cell Phone Surveillance | Cell Tower Data | Judge's Opinion

ECPA
Electronic Communications
Privacy Act

Author’s Comment: Your cell phone tells police a lot about you. A Judge recently provided written testimony about about the impact of the ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act — that is a law that appears to be about anything but ensuring privacy of electronic communications). Title I of the ECPA 18 U.S.C.A. § 2510 allegedly protects wire, oral, and electronic communications while in transit. It was enacted to set down requirements for search warrants that are more stringent than in other settings. If you have issues or questions about this sweeping federal law, call me toll free at 1-877-793-9290.

Excerpts from the written testimony are below. We will be posting the complete testimony and will link to that for our readers.

“ECPA was passed in 1986 as a laudable attempt to balance the privacy rights of citizens and the legitimate interests of law enforcement, given the communications technology of that day.”

Author’s Comment: The ECPA provides that many of the requests and records are to remain secret. Title II of the ECPA, the Stored Communications Act (SCA) 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 to 2712 protects communication held in electronic storage, most notably messages stored on computers.

 

“By contrast, the SCA does not require $ 2703(d) orders to be sealed, and allows for “preclusion of notice” to others only if there is reason to believe the investigation would be jeopardized or other adverse consequences would result. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2705(b)(l)-(5).”

 

“There are over 500 federal magistrate judges serving in district courts around the country. In addition to civil matters, our responsibilities on the criminal side generally include almost everything except conducting felony trials.”

 

“One of our chief functions is to issue search warrants and other orders in aid of criminal investigations. These include electronic surveillance orders for pen registers, trap and trace devices, tracking devices, 2703(d) orders for telephone and e-mail account records and activity.”

 

“With rare exceptions, ECPA orders pertain to ordinary crimes and criminals, not national security or terrorism cases.”

 

“The process is exparte, meaning only one party – law enforcement – appears before the magistrate judge. Since this is at the criminal investigation stage, no defendant has yet been charged so no defense counsel is there to challenge the government’s request. Likewise, no representative of the electronic service provider or the target phone’s subscriber is present. In fact, the orders routinely contain gag orders precluding the service provider from advising their customers that the government is accessing their cell phone or e-mail account records. The public rarely learns about these orders, even long after issuance, because they are routinely placed under indefinite (i.e., permanent) seal.”

 

“A reasonable estimate is that the total number of electronic surveillance orders issued at the federal level each year substantially exceeds 10,000”

 

“The application sought “the location of cell site sector (physical address) at call origination (for outbound calling), call termination (for incoming calls) and, if reasonably available, during the progress of a call,” in addition to “the strength, angle, and timing of the caller’s signal measured at two or more cell sites, as well as other system information such as a listing of all cell towers in the market area, switching technology, protocols, and network architecture.” 390 F. Supp. 2d at 749. “

 

“Under ECPA, secrecy is achieved in two-ways: (1) gag orders preventing service providers from informing customers about law enforcement monitoring of their cell phone and e-mail usage; and (2) sealing orders denying public access to judicial orders. Typically, electronic surveillance orders contain both types of provisions, but rarely impose an expiration period; instead, those orders remain in place “until further order of the court.”29 The catch is that there is no mechanism in place for the judge to revisit the sealing order. She does not retain jurisdiction over the case, which is not a “case” at all but an investigation that may or may not ripen into a real case.”

 

“The brunt of such secrecy is not necessarily borne by the surveillance targets who are ultimately charged with a crime. After all, they are entitled to discover the nature and source of the prosecution’s evidence, including electronic surveillance orders leading to arrest. Suppression motions are available in the event of a constitutional violation. But not everyone caught up in the web of electronic surveillance is ultimately charged with a crime. Any target is likely to call or be called by family, friends, associates, or even total strangers who have no connection to a criminal enterprise. Yet by the fortuity of a single call, these by-standers may be swept up in a criminal investigation, their cell phone use monitored and their location tracked in real time. Unlike criminal defendants, however, these presumably law abiding citizens will never find out. The phone company cannot tell them, and courthouse records will disclose nothing. Ordinarily, a citizen whose house or office is searched is provided a warrant duly signed by a judicial officer, giving notice of the particulars of the search.33 When a citizen wishes to challenge the legitimacy of a law enforcement search of his home pursuant to a warrant, the law affords due process for that purpose. But when searches are shrouded in permanent secrecy, as in most cases of electronic surveillance, due process becomes a dead letter. Such secrecy also has a pernicious impact on the judicial process . . . .”

Author’s Comment: There are proposals to restrict the scope of this federal law, but as of today, November 22, 2010, the law and its ability to gather a diverse array of data about your cell phone usage remains a frequently used tool of federal law enforcement, including DHS (Department of Homeland Security) , DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration), FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), State, and Local Law Enforcement.

If you have issues or questions about this sweeping federal law, call me toll free at 1-877-793-9290.


Cell Phone, Surveillance , SCA, Stored Communications Act , ECPA , 18 U.S.C.  § 2510, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, ,  Electronic Communications Privacy Act


Cell Phone Surveillance | Cell Tower Data 

 

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Update | Cut, Copy, and Paste Not Florida Porn Violation

child pornography, cyber, cybercrime,

Child Pornography, Cybercrime,

Cut, Copy, and Paste

“The images . . . are composite images which were crudely prepared by cutting and pasting a photocopy of the head of a minor onto a photocopy of an adult female.”

Cut, Copy, and Paste Not Florida Porn Violation


“child pornography has been defined in the federal statutes to specifically include composite images.” See 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(C) (2008).”
Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney reports a decision of the Florida Court of Appeal where, “composite images which were crudely prepared by cutting and pasting a photocopy of the head of a minor onto a photocopy of an adult female.” do not constitute violation of the Florida Statutes. Section 827.071(5) proscribes the possession of child pornography, in pertinent part, as follows: It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess a photograph, motion picture, exhibition, show, representation, or other presentation which, in whole or in part, he or she knows to include any sexual conduct by a child. The possession of each such photograph, motion picture, exhibition, show, representation, or presentation is a separate offense.

“The images . . . are composite images which were crudely prepared by cutting and pasting a photocopy of the head of a minor onto a photocopy of an adult female.”


The court ruled “If the legislature had intended to proscribe the possession of composite images that simulate lewd and lascivious exhibition of the genitals, it could have included a provision doing so.  In fact, child pornography has been defined in the federal statutes to specifically include composite images.” See 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(C) (2008).

 

The Tribune reports, “The U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 overturned a federal law that made computer-simulated child pornography illegal. The high court ruled that because the computer-generated depictions were not the product of the actual sexual abuse of children they were protected by the First Amendment.”
 
You can call Casey at 1-877-793-9290 for a free phone consultation.
.
Sources: https://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2010/December/dec0310.shtml

https://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/dec/03/031558/child-porn-conviction-of-ex-polk-principal-overtur/news-breaking/

Child Porn Defense Attorneys | Restitution Issues

 Possession of Child Pornography, federal criminal defense, restitution, Child Porn Defense Attorneys

Child Porn Restitution Issues


Child Porn Restitution Issues


Tampa Criminal Defense expert notes a contact with a senior attorney with a large federal criminal defense team who has reported “serious attempts to get restitution for the child victims of the photos.”  Recently, a restitution order in excess of $3,600,000 was ordered against a defendant in a Southern District of Florida . An appeal has been filed and 11th Circuit has set the case for December 2010. The restitution is sought by an  attorney representing the children portrayed in the contraband seized by the feds, the “Amy” series and the “Vicky” series.

In
Tampa last year, 2009, the Government and Probation agreed that, in a possession of child pornography case, restitution for Vicky was not appropriate “because the harm to the victim was not proximately caused by the defendant.”  That case is U.S. v. XXX, Case No. 8:09-cr-00189-T-27MAP. (Name omitted).
 
If you have issues or questions about this sweeping federal law, call me toll free at 1-877-793-9290.
Source: Senior Criminal Defense Attorney in the Middle District of Florida
 
Child Porn Defense Attorneys

Destruction and Spoliation of Evidence | Sanctions

“The sanctions: Defendant to be imprisoned for up to two years, or
until he paid the attorneys’ fees and costs estimated to be a “significant amount.”

Spoliation of Evidence, ESI, destruction of evidence, Electronically Stored Information,

Spoliation of Evidence

Spoliation

Spoliation of Evidence in Cybercrimes


Florida Cybercrime  Attorney has been researching sanctions for destruction of evidence, also known as Spoliation. The Sanctions: Defendant to Pay Attorneys’ Fees or Serve Two Years Imprisonment for “Egregious” Discovery Misconduct.

 


The plaintiff sought sanctions arising out of the defendants’ intentional spoliation of evidence and other litigation misconduct in this intellectual property litigation. There were eight preservation issues including: use of wiping software; failure to implement litigation hold; failure to preserve an external hard drive; failure to preserve files and e-mails notwithstanding plaintiff’s demands and several court orders.

 


The Judge found through four years of discovery, the defendant had actual knowledge of his duty to preserve, “yet delayed and misrepresented the completeness of the ESI [Electronically Stored Information] production and deleted, destroyed and otherwise failed to preserve evidence.” The Judge then found the destruction “collectively constitute[d] the single most egregious example of spoliation [that he has] encountered in any case & in nearly fourteen years on the bench.”

The sanctions: Defendant to be imprisoned for up to two years, or until he paid the attorneys’ fees and costs estimated to be a “significant amount.”

Sources:

Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 2010 WL 3703696 (D. Md. Sept. 9, 2010)
https://www.krollontrack.com/newsletters/clu-102010/CLU-102010-decisions.html ?news=US_CaseLaw_Oct_10-a&#D1