No, obviously it was. A internet connection that he pays for every month was used to download child porn. That's about as "solid" as it gets. See my comment about a car you own at a fatality accident.
The only person he has to blame here is himself.
BTW, do I think that forced entry in a case of suspected child pornography is appropriate? You BET! - It's far from a victimless crime, in fact it's one of the single most heinous crimes imaginable, and it's a crime that can be covered up with literally a mouse click or key stroke. Surprise is the only advantage they have.
This is NOT a case of the cops showing up without cause or at the wrong address. They were at the RIGHT address with clearly established probable cause.
He is to blame? As another poster suggested, you're nuts.
and it's a crime that can be covered up with literally a mouse click or key stroke
That, is total BS. It's not like drugs that can be flushed which is what they use to justify their NAZI like armed entries.
At least the guys dog didn't get executed.
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.
>>and it’s a crime that can be covered up with literally a mouse click or key stroke. <<
No. It can’t.
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.
It certainly is a hidioius crime.but the cops aren,t supposed to meet out punishment for it.
“..it’s a crime that can be covered up with literally a mouse click or key stroke.”
As a certified forensic computer specialist, I can assure you that is not true. It takes a lot of time (hours) to wipe a drive, especially the multi-gigabyte drives in use today. If the perp tried to run a wipe program, all the cops have to do is pull the plug. You might lose some data, but not a significant amount. Formatting the drive doesn’t take long, but it also doesn’t delete any data - it just deletes the file system, which is easy to recover.
I agree that the cops had sufficient cause to get a search warrant. I disagree that serving the warrant required the SWAT tactics used, and they could be subject for excessive force charges. And remember, in a civil case, the jusry decides if excessive force is used, not a judge...
I hope the chains rest lightly on you, FRiend.
The government has to understand that unsecured wifi is common. They have to understand that unsecured routers can and often are used by anybody. Next time, bring a laptop with a good powerful usb dongle and test to see if they can use the router. If they can, it means that anyone could. And the government should know that people doing things like dl porn through that router is probably being done by people who aren’t the owner of that router. The gov’t did find the guy, right? It just took a little bit longer, required more work.
I think the government should just assume that the person with the unsecured router is not the person doing the bad thing.
Whether they have enough probable cause to obtain an arrest warrant is less clear. Did they have ability to determine in advance whether the router was secured? How close were the neighboring residences? These are questions that should have been asked by the judge who issues the arrest warrant, and which should have been determined by those seeking it. If they were not, there is a breakdown in the system.
Even if they obtained an arrest warrant, once inside the house and determining that the internet access is not secured, and the homeowner denies being the one doing the downloading, probable cause for an arrest vanishes. The resident becomes a suspect. Probable cause, if I remember correctly, can disappear if subsequent facts come to light that negate the facts on which it was originally based.
In no event are they permitted to lay hands on the homeowner.
Yeah, I'd sue the hell out of these cops (actually, their employer), and take this case on contingency. Cases against cops are exceedingly hard, but between the false arrest and the police brutality, I think the defenses that cops have can be overcome, and that a jury's outrage would result in a pretty good result.
A destructive delete takes a little more work than a mouse clike or a key stroke. You can 'delete' the files, but that only deletes the directory entries. The goods are still there on the hard drive and can be recovered.
And don’t just make sure Your wireless is secure. Do not forget your elderly parents!!! They often don’t have a clue but still want to get online all over the house. Make sure their routers are secure. Ask older people that you might know.
“that can be covered up with literally a mouse click or key stroke”
Take 500 non-CP pictures, put them on your HD. See how long it takes to get rid of them (I mean beyond forensic recovery), and also clean all of your browsing history.
The program “Evidence Destroyer” takes quite a while to work, considering the no-nock timeframe we are discussing.
Once you get that done, clean your externals and destroy a dozen DVDs.
A no-knock dynamic entry is not called for when dealing with computer-related crime. This is not like having a half-ounce of blow.