Home » Blog » Computers

CHAB6000 POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

Posted on September 11, 2010 by W.F. Casey Ebsary

Possession of Child Pornography, Cybercrime, Cyber, 827.071.5, CHAB6000

Possession of Child Pornography

If you have been charged with CHAB6000 POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY you can call a Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer at 1-877-793-9290 and tell me your story.

Form Code: CHAB6000

Florida Statute: 827.071.5
Level: Fel (Felony)
Degree: 3rd
Description: POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

CHAB6000 POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY is often charged in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Title XLVI CRIMES
Chapter 827 ABUSE OF CHILDREN

827.071 Sexual performance by a child; penalties.

(5) 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. Whoever violates this subsection is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Tampa Attorney | Spoliation of Computer Evidence | USB Thumb Drive | External Hard Drive

Posted on August 31, 2010 by W.F. Casey Ebsary

Spoliation of Evidence

“At trial, the jury will be instructed that data deleted . . .

contained information detrimental to defendants.”

Tampa Criminal Defense expert has just studied a recent Circuit Court Order in Florida where a Judge ruled a jury can learn of destruction of evidence on a USB Thumb drive and external hard drive in a civil case. Under the Florida Rules of Evidence (FRE), spoliation of evidence can result in sanctions. Spoliation is a legal term for destruction of evidence.

The Florida Circuit Court Judge noted that a party had intentionally deleted files on a USB Thumb Drive and external hard drive. Apparently the USB Thumb Drive had been thrown away. The Court also observed that the materials on the drives were subject to the Discovery Rules under a Court Order. Prejudice can occur when efforts of a litigant are obstructed. The court found that while data had been destroyed, the opposing party could still present evidence to support its allegations. The Jury in the case will be given an “adverse inference” instruction that would tell the jury to assume that the deleted data on the USB Thumb Drive would have hurt the offending party’s case. The Court noted, “The content of the files deleted from the Sheriff’s laptop, the external hard drive and the Armor computer is not known. Plaintiff’s expert may be able to reconstruct some or all of these files, but only at excessive cost to plaintiff. The thumb drive, of course, has been lost altogether.”

Excerpted Text of Court’s Ruling:

“1. The motion to impose sanctions for spoliation of evidence is granted.

2. At trial, the jury will be instructed that data deleted from the Sheriff’s Office laptop, the Armor computer and the external hard drive, and data on the discarded thumb drive, contained information detrimental to defendants.

3. Plaintiff’s expert shall not be required to perform further analysis in an effort to retrieve deleted files or data.

4. Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees incurred in connection with the prosecution of the instant motion.”

Source: FLW Supp 1709PRIS

Board Certified Criminal Trial
Lawyer in Tampa, Florida

Search Warrant | I Phone | Cell Phone | Florida Attorney

Posted on July 17, 2010 by W.F. Casey Ebsary

Phone Search Warrant

Cell Phone Search Warrant

Search Warrant for a Cell Phone

Tampa Technology Lawyer and Criminal Defense Expert, W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary, Jr. in Florida has spent time reviewing a rather interesting Search Warrant for a cellular telephone. Specifically, an iPhone that Apple Computer Corporation wanted to retrieve. Take a look at the 22 page warrant and what was seized for yourself: Cell phones, text messages, and email are a frequent target of state and federal law enforcement when investigating technology cases.

iPhone Search Warrant

Search Warrant for a Cell Phone? Tell Your Story Toll Free 813-222-2220.

Federal Defense Attorney on Search and Seizure of Electronic Devices

Posted on March 7, 2010 by W.F. Casey Ebsary

Search Warrant

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney has reviewed Government policies on Search and Seizure of Electronic Devices at borders. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) policy is to treat computers, laptops, and other electronic devices like suitcases and backpacks in terms of border searches. It appears under current DHS policy, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents believe they are not required to provide justification or a reason for these electronic searches.

In a response to a recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, CBP disclosed the following: Electronic devices that were searched included laptops, USB thumb drives, hard drives, cell phones, digital cameras, and even DVD disks . From October 2008 through June 2009, CBP officials searched over 1,500 electronic devices belonging to travelers.

Cell phones were the most often searched and seized devices between October 2008 and June 2009. From July 2008 to June 2009, and Border Protection (CBP) transferred electronic files found on travelers’ devices to third-party agencies almost 300 times. More than 80 percent of the transfers involved the CBP making copies of travelers’ files. Over half the time, these unknown agencies asserted independent bases for retaining or seizing the transferred files.

As a defense attorney, it appears that the best strategy when traveling is to leave electronic devices at home.

Border Search?
Tell Me Your Story Toll Free 1-877-793-9290.

Sources: https://www.informationweek.com/news/
government/security/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=219500468
https://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/
FeaturedDocs/DHS_ForeignTravelThreatAssessment.pdf
https://www.aclu.org/print/national-security/customs-and-border
-protection-cbp-first-production-documents
Federal Defense Attorney on Search and Seizure of Electronic Devices

Text and Email Messages at Work

Posted on March 7, 2010 by W.F. Casey Ebsary

Search Warrant Text Messages

“law prohibits providers from providing the contents of any

communication that is maintained on the service without a search warrant”

Up until this week a Florida Attorney would tell you that your employer can probably read your emails and text messages on company provided devices. That may change based on a recent development in an appeals court’s decision. In that case, the court found your boss shouldn’t read your text or e-mail messages.

Text messages were obtained from a wireless carrier and reviewed by an employer without the employee’s permission. The federal appeals court sharply limited the ability of employers to obtain e-mails and text messages sent by employees on company accounts.

A Tampa Internet lawyer observes that Access to e-mail could be barred if the employer contracts out its e-mail service rather than maintaining an internal server to handle it.

One report found that about 28% of Microsoft Outlook users have their e-mail handled by an outside vendor, according to research firm Radicati Group. The ruling also gave government workers Fourth 4th Amendment protection against searches of text and e-mail communications by their bosses.

The privacy case was a unanimous ruling and the first federal appellate decision to provide 4th Amendment protection to electronic messages. Arguably, police may now need to obtain a warrant before they could access someone’s e-mail or text messages.

The court found that the wireless service provider violated the Federal Stored Communications Act. That law prohibits providers from providing the contents of any communication that is maintained on the service without a search warrant.

Employees had an expectation of privacy that was protected by the Constitution. Feel free to contact Board Certified Trial Lawyer, W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary Jr. Toll Free at 1-877-793-9290 to discuss how this may affect you.

Search Warrant Text Messages

Federal Sentencing in Computer Related Crimes

Posted on March 6, 2010 by W.F. Casey Ebsary

crimes computer Tampa Florida Computer Crimes Attorney/Lawyer

For More Computer Crimes Info

Tampa Florida Federal Criminal Defense Attorney, Lawyer W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary notes that Computer crimes draw stiff sentences in Federal Courts. However, at a United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) hearing in Chicago, a Judge said it would give him comfort in affirming below-guideline sentences in child porn cases to see data showing there are lots of below guidelines sentences. There is such data.

In the first three quarters of 2009, judges sentenced below the guideline range in 503 of 1195 cases (42%) and the government moved for a below-guideline sentence in another 128 cases (10.7%), 101 of which were for reasons other than 5K1.1, that is, for reasons under 3553(a). See USSC Preliminary Data Report, Table 5.

The complete Report is at the link below:

If you have a computer problem in Federal or State Court – Tell Me Your Story Toll Free 1-877-793-9290.

Source: https://www.ussc.gov/sc_cases/USSC_2009_Quarter_Report_3rd.pdf.

Computer Search Warrants

Posted on October 16, 2009 by W.F. Casey Ebsary

Computer Search Warrants

“Government cannot rely on the Fourth Amendment’s plain-view doctrine in cases where the investigators rely on the intermingling of computerized records”

Computer Search Warrants

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney reports severe limits in Computer Search Warrants and Searches – Another court has laid out detailed procedures for issuance and execution of search warrants for computers that contain files outside the scope of a search warrant. The court ruled that the Government cannot rely on the Fourth Amendment’s plain-view doctrine in cases where the investigators rely on the intermingling of computerized records to justify a broad seizure and examination of electronically stored records. United States v.Comprehensive Drug Testing Inc., 9th Cir.(en banc), No. 05-10067 (8/26/09).

The court states, “The process of segregating electronic data that is seizable from that which is not must not become a vehicle for the government to gain access to data which it has no probable cause to collect.” The plain-view doctrine is an issue courts have been struggling with.

Detailed procedures for searches of computer electronic data:

1. The government must not rely on the plain view doctrine in digital evidence cases.

2. Search must be either done by specialized personnel with a procedure to prevent disclosure investigators of information that is not the target of the warrant.

3. The government’s search method must be designed to uncover only the information for which it has probable cause.

When Computers Land in Court, We Can Help – Tell Me Your Story Toll Free – 1-877-793-9290.

Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney on Computer Forensic Searches and Warrants

Source: https://pub.bna.com/cl/0510067a.pdf

Computer Search Warrant Tampa – Overbroad

Posted on September 23, 2009 by W.F. Casey Ebsary

Computer Search Warrant

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney, Lawyer W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary, Jr. , noted a recent case decided on the scope of search warrants issued in computer cases. Wired magazine noted:

“A divided 11-judge federal appeals court panel has dramatically narrowed the government’s search-and-seizure powers in the digital age, ruling Wednesday that federal prosecutors went too far when seizing 104 professional baseball players’ drug results when they had a warrant for just 10.”

The Court suggested that during a computer’s hard drive search, data should be culled to include the specific data described in the search warrant. The entire hard drive should not be subject to a wholesale review. When the entire drive is seized, an independent third party should review the data. The information should be limited by the Court. The term “filter teams” has been used to refer to the third party who review data seized by a search warrant.

The Appeals Court stated that the judge reviewing the search warrant application should “deny the warrant altogether” if the government does not agree to a third-party review in cases where data will be searched.

Has your data been the subject of a Search Warrant? We can help. Call Toll Free 1-877-793-9290 .

Source: wired.com/threatlevel/2009/08/privacyboost/

Computer Search Warrant Tampa – Overbroad

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney on eMail and Subpoenas

Posted on September 11, 2009 by W.F. Casey Ebsary

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney on eMail and Subpoenas

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney notes that one court just held a Search Warrant for eMail was unnecessary, where a federal subpoena was issued. The federal Judge ruled that an Internet Service Provider must comply with the Government subpoena for E-Mail. In this cybercrime prosecution, the Government had subpoenaed the Internet service provider (ISP) and sought the contents of electronic communications. The subpoena requested previously opened or sent e-mail that belonged to the defendant.

The ISP failed to produce e-mails that had been stored for fewer than 181 days, the Government filed a motion to compel production of the e-mails’ content. The ISP claimed the information sought required a search warrant. The Court ruled that the Stored Communications Act (SCA), required the ISP to comply with the Government’s subpoena if the e-mails are held or maintained solely to provide the customer storage or computer processing services.

The court further ruled that previously opened e-mails stored by the ISP for web-based e-mail systems—as distinguished from other e-mail systems—are not in “electronic storage,” which is defined by the Wiretap Act as storage incidental to electronic transmission and for the purposes of backup protection of the e-mail. Based on this finding, the court ordered the ISP to comply fully with the Government’s subpoena.

When Federal Subpoenas are issued, we can help. Tell me your story Toll Free 1-877-793-9290 .

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney Subpoena eMail

Source: United States v. Weaver, 2009 WL 2163478 (C.D. Ill. July 15, 2009).

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney on Juror Misconduct

Posted on April 24, 2009 by W.F. Casey Ebsary

Juror Misconduct

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary, Jr. , notes that the New York Times has uncovered a rash of mistrials resulting from jurors using technology during voir dire (jury selection) and throughout the trial and deliberations.

During a federal drug trial in Florida a juror admitted that he had been doing research on the case on the Internet The judge had instructed the jury not to rely on evidence not presented in court. The other eight jurors had been doing the same thing. The judge declared a mistrial- pulling the plug on an eight-week trial.

The complete story is available here.

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney on Juror Misconduct