@amischiefr said:
This is the stupidest sentense that I have read in a long time. How would the hosting site EVER be able to do this? It's not like they can get a picture or video of the accused walking into the store creating the transaction. This doesn't make the affidavit rediculous. The computer, and possivly other electronic equipment, was used in the purportration of a crime, so they got an affidavit to retreive them in order to better determine what happened. It's called "collecting evidence".
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.
@amischiefr said:
I thought you said that you read the affidavit? It clearely states other evidence in there supporting the possibility of stolen equipment from various sources stating that they would see him frequently with equipment that did not belong to him. One such piece of equipment was stolen and the suspected was seen with an identical piece.
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. 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.
@amischiefr said:
No, it outlines quite a few things in there that indicate suspicious activity. The computer (mac address and computer name) were identified as belonging to the suspect. While they didn't have evidence at the time proving that the suspect was indeed the one behind the keyboard at the time, they do know that the computer was used to create the fake account and that it was used to distribute the email anouncing such.
Suspicious activity is not evidence of a crime. There is no evidence that the account is not legitimate, only evidence that his computer was used to view the account. Further, even if there were a security video demonstrating beyond all doubt that he created a fake account, then sent the email, neither is in violation of the two statutes he is "suspected" of violating. As a matter of law, to support a warrant the specific offenses (i.e. statutes being violated) must be named and supporting evidence of those offenses must be supplied. The only statute that has a matching accusation has no supporting evidence. If the police intend to charge the accused with unauthorized access in connection with changing students' grades and desire a warrant to support it, then they would need evidence that the accused did in fact access the computer system in a manner not consistent with his work activity for the school's IT department.
The affidavit provides no evidence of a crime and nothing to connect the accused to a crime, so it's completely baseless.
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.