@Anon Ymous said:
The police have information identifying the accused's computer and times at which he accessed the site. The site presumably has records pertaining to when the account was created and the computer that created it. Accessing a profile is not a crime and sending an email is not a crime. There is no evidence that he actually created the profile, nor does the creation of the profile support the crimes he is accused of committing. Therefore there is no evidence that the computer was used to commit a crime. It is a violation of the US law to conduct a search or seize property without evidence that was used to commit a crime.
Please show me the laws that confirm your statements. All they need to prove is that they have a "reason" to believe that the device was used to commit a crime. The "evidence" is ON the computer that they need to seize. People are convicted all the time based on circumstancial evidence, or evidence that leads one to believe the person committed the crime. People are convicted of murder without having a picture of themselves committing the act, and without their fingerprints on the bloody knife. In this case they have circumstancial evidence and are investigating into the matter.
@Anon Ymous said:
It cites a single source, the witness that the police interviewed.
The affidavit contains nothing to corroborate the claims, no proof of
the witnesses expertise in the area, nothing to support the witnesses
credibility, as required by law. Seeing someone with something that
does not belong to him is not evidence of a crime nor grounds
for a warrant unless the witness knows or has good reason to believe it
is stolen.
So what you are saying is that if a woman is raped her being able to point out the guy who did it isn't enough cause to investigate? Does she need a photo of the crime in the act? Maybe three witnesses that sat and watched the act with a bag of popcorn? Or maybe does she have to be an expert on being raped? I see where you are going with this, you can't go around arresting everybody based on "he said, she said." However, in circumstances such as this one you cannot collect the evidence without the computer. The amount of evidence required is up to the judge granting the search warrent, and this one decided that they had enough.
@Anon Ymous said:
The affidavit provides no evidence or probable cause to
believe that anything in the accused's possession was stolen. To
support a warrant this information must be included in the affidavit,
as a matter of law. Further, even if it were true, the warrant does not
state larceny or possession of stolen property among the crimes he is
suspected of committing. The police can not seize his property for this
unless it is specifically identified in the affidavit as a matter of
law.
I don't know the exact laws up there so I cannot say what the state constitution says about what a detective must have on an affidavit in order for it to be valid. I will go ahead and make an assumption that you are not a lawyer in the area and probably don't know either, but I'll give you this one.
@Anon Ymous said:
The affidavit provides no evidence of a crime and nothing to connect the accused to a crime, so it's completely baseless.
The "proof" that connects the accused to the crime is that it is his computer. This is the same basis as when you are pulled over by the police and you have a kilo in your back seat. You can say it isn't yours all day, but guess what: You are going to jail for it. Look, you are argueing that they need to have all this evidence in order to seize his property and bring charges on him. The fact of the matter is the evidence, if there is any, lies on his computer.
@Anon Ymous said:
P.S. It's not illegal to be in possession of cracked software for
jailbroken iPods. If the possessor never entered into a license
agreement with the software publisher through the purchase of a
software license (or obtaining a free usage license), then he can not
be in violation of that agreement. Posessing "illegally downloaded"
movies or, for that matter, downloading them, is not illegal. The DMCA
clearly defines copyright infringement on digital works. In order to
infringe, one must distribute the unauthorized copy. Neither
obtaining, nor doing so with the intent to distribute it are in
violation of the DMCA. Jailbreaking iPods and iPhones is not a crime
either, as the accused entered into no agreement not to do so with the
manufacturer of the device, nor the service provider. The owner of the
divices may be in breach of a contract with the service provider, but
that is a civil, not criminal matter.
At least we agree on one thing.