Posted on 04/24/2011 9:10:24 AM PDT by decimon
BUFFALO, N.Y. – Lying on his family room floor with assault weapons trained on him, shouts of "pedophile!" and "pornographer!" stinging like his fresh cuts and bruises, the Buffalo homeowner didn't need long to figure out the reason for the early morning wake-up call from a swarm of federal agents.
That new wireless router. He'd gotten fed up trying to set a password. Someone must have used his Internet connection, he thought.
"We know who you are! You downloaded thousands of images at 11:30 last night," the man's lawyer, Barry Covert, recounted the agents saying. They referred to a screen name, "Doldrum."
"No, I didn't," he insisted. "Somebody else could have but I didn't do anything like that."
"You're a creep ... just admit it," they said.
Law enforcement officials say the case is a cautionary tale. Their advice: Password-protect your wireless router.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
But does it mean bust in with the SWAT team,throw the guy around and insult him?
Yep... The same people who gave is the Geheimestaatspolizei, Sicherheitendeinst, the Schützstaffel, and Buchenwald.
I never said that my clients were “stupid.” I said that they are clueless - completely unaware of the legal peril to which they are leaving themselves.
From the legal point of view, it doesn’t matter what their motives or reasons for open-access are. Generous? Cool with it? Simply unaware? It doesn’t matter. They are in legal jeopardy in they leave their WiFi unprotected.
Ask a criminal lawyer if you don’t understand.
An argument someone was making further up the thread was that an unsecured wireless is legally safer than partially secured or poorly secured.
If you’ve got unsecured, it’s clear that any person could be using the connection. If it’s somewhat secured, they’re going to assume that you’re the one using the connection, and if it’s only somewhat secured, it’s very possible that someone who is good at such things can access your somewhat secure connection.
Breaking and entering, assault, etc. Didn't you read the article?
This is an example of why the behavior referred to as "quibbling" is considered an honor-code violation at military academies.
That may be because it ain't there. All that's there is a report that they apologized (i.e. admitted their wrongdoing).
So what if drugs are flushed? Modern forensics can still find the traces in the toilet water -- then, you can add attempted destruction of evidence to the other charges.
This testosterone-poisoned Rambo-wannabee crap has to end, PDQ.
Thanks for destroying your own case. If the evidence is elsewhere, the already-bogus justification for pulling a Rambo-wannabee act vanishes altogether.
Obviously, there are always loopholes the crooks can discover and use. That does not in any way justify this sort of jackboot thuggery by the government.
I'd add that the half-ounce of blow doesn't justify dynamic entry, either. The owner might flush it down the toilet? Let him -- and get a sample of toilet water to take back to the lab. (Yeah, that's too much like doing real police work and not so much like been a kewl l33t k0mmand0. Tough.)
The only regrettable part is that the civil suit damages for the victim will come from the city, not from the personal assets of these Rambo-wannabees and their supervisors.
Antonin Scalia and four other members of The US Supreme Court disagreed,k when they expanded the holding in a previous case, Wilson v. Arkansas (94-5707), 514 U.S. 927 (1995, which states expressly...
Finally, courts have indicated that unannounced entry may be justified where police officers have reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given. See Ker, 374 U. S., at 40-41 (plurality opinion); People v. Maddox, 46 Cal. 2d 301, 305-306, 294 P. 2d 6, 9 (1956).We need not attempt a comprehensive catalog of the relevant countervailing factors here. For now, we leave to the lower courts the task of determining the circumstances under which an unannounced entry is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. We simply hold that although a search or seizure of a dwelling might be constitutionally defective if police officers enter without prior announcement, law enforcement interests may also establish the reasonableness of an unannounced entry.
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your (many) rants.
If only this were a "military academy". It isn't.
Breaking and entering? Are you retarded? They had a LEGALLY OBTAINED and LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE SEARCH WARRANT.
If he's alleging assault, then he should have no problem proving that to a jury in a civil case. Let me know how it turns out.
1. Police obtain search warrant.
2. Police approach place to be searched.
3. Police knock on door.
4. Police show their identifications and warrant.
5. Police conduct search as specified in warrant.
The step "Police conduct stormtrooper raid and assault" is only found in the sort of society you find more familiar and/or preferable.
You seem incapable of reading. I CLEARLY cited the relevant case law, and you respond by citing your personal philosophy, or something.
What the police did in this case was facially legal, as proven by more than a decade of on-point case law. Period.
Maybe the police should just ask real nice for the pedophiles to turn themselves in?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.