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 ...
Bullies w badges.
I couldn't tell you, but what is worse is to see FReepers come here and try to justify it.
These LEO's need to be held personally responsible for their behavior then maybe they'll give some more thought to their unconstitutional actions before they execute them.
>>But a SWAT Team?
Where was the expection of an armed resistance
necessitating the use of drawn arms on forced entry? <<
That is the part I find extremely interesting. It’s not like a knock on the door is going to result in a mad dash to flush drugs down the toilet or wipe a hard drive. It is totally inapropriate - especially in a world where open wi-fi may not be the norm, but it is common enough to not assume that you have the perp simply because it is his IP.
This is especially true since any SMART bad guy is not going to use his own connection to do this sort of crap. He’s going to use someone elses. The cops LITERALLY should have seriously considered that that is what was going on in this case.
How the warrant is served is independent of the crime. Was there any cause for the PD to expect a violent response? If not, SWAT was not called for. Also it is not possible to destroy any significant quantity of data instantly. Your scenario about one mouse click and it is gone is specious.
Finally, the police could have easily checked for an open router before turning SWAT loose. It is called due diligence, and should be expected from professionals.
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The story CLEARLY states and his own attorney stipulates that it was ROUTER that was used to download internet porn. The evidence that established probable cause to search his residence was quite clearly ACCURATE an TRUTHFUL.
"He is to blame? As another poster suggested, you're nuts."
Yes, he's to blame. If he wasn't to blame, I can promise you he'd be suing.
"That, is total BS. It's not like drugs that can be flushed...That, is total BS."
Then you have absolutely no idea how child-pornographers work.
I would love to hear about all the child-porn cases you've successfully prosecuted. I've prosecuted about five.
>>and it’s a crime that can be covered up with literally a mouse click or key stroke. <<
No. It can’t.
So you’re a thief?
I'll wait.
Also it’s not to hard to crack some of the older routers. So if you protect it and someone cracks it then piggybacks...you’re really screwed because they will argue in court it was secured.
Being unsecured is actually better legal protection than secured; however, unsecured is more likely to get you falsely accused.
I’d rather be falsely accused and then prove my innocence vice being falsey accused and found guilty.
>>And, all I’m saying is that the evidence WAS solid.<<
Apparently not. :D
When a lot of people out there don’t bother to seal their routers and the police KNOW that pedophiles are motivated to use someone else’s connection, it is one of the first things the cops should have considered.
Why wasn't the name of the guy who threw him down the stairs published? He should be proud of his work on the public dime and be willing to take full credit. After all he was not to proud to sign the back of his paycheck.
>>And, all I’m saying is that the evidence WAS solid.<<
BTW, I have twelve networks within range of my condo. Most, but not all, are secure. One looks open but it is Mac id protected. I know. I tried. ;)
“If you have wireless in your house, for crying out loud people, PASSWORD PROTECT it! It takes a few seconds to do.”
I have never gotten that to work. When I had routers I used Mac address protection.
That's interesting, because that's not ANYWHERE in the story, and in fact is directly contradicted by the man's own attorney. Perhaps you're clairvoyant, and there privy to more accurate information. Care to share with us tonight's winning lotto numbers?
Good for you, but that is not the discussion at hand.
We're discussing whether the evidence as you suggested was solid, it has been proved that it was NOT.
I'm surprised the cops didn't plant some porn on the guys computer so they would appear to be the NAZIS they've become.
It's even worse to see a FReeper here trying to defend them.
They could have tried walking up and knocking on the door first and talking to the guy. It is not like the suspect was a known armed and dangerous violent criminal. They could have waited and stopped him on the way to work. There are a number of things they could have done besides staging a swat raid at 0 dark 30. Modern police prefer to use their neat swat gear, kick in doors and intimidate the peasants suspected of non violent crimes. I am assuming there were no dogs around because the story does not mention any dogs being shot.
“The homeowner later got an apology from U.S. Attorney William Hochul and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent in Charge Lev Kubiak.”
If the LEOs acted correctly, why the apology?
“This is a bit like having a car that your friends all use and getting a red light ticket in the mail where the face is not clear. You’re off the hook.”
No wonder why the muzzies want their women to be able to wear their hijab everyhwere, they can get out of speeding tickets on top of everything else. Damn.
If it wasn't his internet connection that was used, then whose was it and why did his attorney not say that it wasn't even his internet connection that was used?
"I'm surprised the cops didn't plant some porn on the guys computer so they would appear to be the NAZIS they've become."
I'm surprised you don't write professional for the daytime soaps. You certainly have the right flair for the dramatic.
The evidence was suggestive, not conclusive and in now way warranted the reaction it received from the cops.
The outcome supports my opinion, not yours.
I used that term in the title. Whether or not my usage is precisely correct is irrelevant.
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.