Close

Articles Posted in Computer crimes

Updated:

Eyewitness accounts and testimony

MAJ Hasan’s UCMJ Article 32 hearing and likely court-martial is drawing and will continue to draw lots of attention — of course, duh.  But just as we have seen in other high profile cases there are opportunities for what I call teachable moments.  Here are two from the item posted…

Updated:

Collateral consequences

The U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Ontario v. Quon today.  Quon is a case about searching pagers and cellphones. Our clients convicted of child pornography offenses and certain other offenses in which the internet is case related are restricted in computer access post-release.  I mention Quon because of an…

Updated:

Digital privacy?

SCOTUSBlog reports that: At about 11 a.m. Monday, the Supreme Court will hear one hour of oral argument in City of Ontario, et al., v. Quon, et al. (08-1332).  Arguing for the California city and its police department will be Kent L. Richland of Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland in…

Updated:

Up periscope

Gazette.com reports that: An Army prosecutor Tuesday opened the trial of an Iraq war veteran by accusing him of the “ultimate betrayal” — raping a comrade’s wife. Spc. Philip C. Vermeiren, 28, is accused of assaulting the woman early Oct. 31 during an alcohol-fueled party at the Fort Carson apartment…

Updated:

Search & seizure

Here’s a case from New Jersey of some interest, Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 2010 N.J. LEXIS 241 (March 30, 2010). [W]e find that Stengart had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the e-mails she exchanged with her attorney on Loving Care’s laptop. Stengart plainly took steps to protect…

Updated:

Collateral consequences – sex offenders

Haven’t posted on this for a while.  There’s a lot going on out there in terms of state and federal litigation.  A significant issue relates to the types of restrictions on a sex offender. So, what are the limits on computer and technology use for those convicted of sex offenses?…

Updated:

Cellphone search requires warrant

Ohio holds today (4-3) that a cell phone search requires a warrant without exigent circumstances. Therefore, it was not subject to a search incident. Today’s cell phones are analogous to a computer. State v. Smith, 2009 Ohio 6426 (December 15, 2009). FourthAmendment blog reports.  Seems there ought to be similar…

Contact Us
Start Chat