Southern California Defense Blog

For the uninitiated, the term “sock-puppet” is used in reference to the Internet to describe a situation where a person creates a fake online identity, usually for the purpose of deception. While it might seem obvious that, for instance, if a person makes up a false identity, and posts an ad offering to sell a baseball autographed by Babe Ruth for $10,000, but the poster has no such baseball, and the poster takes another person’s $10,000 and fails to deliver the goods, the poster can be charged with an internet crime. What about other contexts, such as harassment?

Take the case of Megan Meier. Ms. Meier was a teenager from Dardenne Prairie, Missouri who had a falling out with a friend. Thereafter, the friend and her mother allegedly set up a web page on the social networking site MySpace. The thing is, according to the allegations, they did not use their own names and identities. The page indicated that it belonged to a teenage boy by the name of Josh Evans. This identity was apparently not related to any real person with that name. It should be noted that Ms. Meier’s friend’s mother has denied setting up this MySpace page.

Allegedly, after establishing this fake identity online, “Josh Evans” began contacting Ms. Meier via Ms. Meier’s MySpace page. The initial contacts were friendly, with “Josh Evans” telling Ms. Meier that he thought she was attractive. Thereafter, the tone of the messages began to change. “Josh Evans” began sending Ms. Meier hurtful messages, and indicating that he was no longer interested in being Ms. Meier’s friend. There was an indication in news reports that the last message indicated that the “world would be a better place without” Ms. Meier. Investigators were not able to find any record of this message. Ms. Meier apparently discussed these hurtful messages with her mother, and this discussion ensued in an argument between Ms. Meier and her mother. Ms. Meier was found thereafter hanging by her neck in her bedroom closet. She subsequently died and her death has been ruled a suicide.

Continue reading ""SOCK-PUPPETING" MAY LEAD TO CRIMINAL CHARGES" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Internet Crimes

Bookmark:

According to a recent report on Foxnews.com, this point was made clear recently to a group of teenage girls in New York, who apparently videotaped themselves confronting a younger girl, and then slapping and kicking the girl in the head and body. The girls then apparently posted the video footage of the beating on YouTube. After police discovered the video, the girls were all arrested and charged with attempted assault. It is amazing how many cases we see here at Wallin & Klarich were people would not have been prosecuted for committing crimes had they not either bragged about them on a blog or MySpace page, or posted videotape of themselves committing the crime on an Internet site such as YouTube. Of course, it is far better to not commit a crime in the first place, however, if you have done something that could expose you to arrest, posting evidence of your activities on the Internet is probably one of the worst things you can do.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Internet Crimes

Bookmark:

A recent opinion by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently addressed this issue. Warshack v. United States (6th Cir. Dkt. 06-4092, 6/18/2007).

In this case, the US government was investigating Mr. Warshack for suspected mail and wire fraud, money laundering, and other federal crimes and they wanted to obtain Mr. Warshack’s stored e-mails from his internet service provider.

Typically, before government investigators can obtain personal information from a person, they are required, by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, to obtain a search warrant from a judge. A judge is only permitted to issue a search warrant when the government can demonstrate “probable cause” to believe that what the government wants to search will reveal evidence of a crime. In 1986, however, Congress passed the “Stored Communications Act” (18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2712) (SCA). The SCA outlines how the government may go about obtaining “electronic communications” (such as e-mails) in a “remote storage service” (such as an internet service provider (ISP) e-mail account). The SCA gives the government the option of either obtaining a search warrant, or obtaining a court order for disclosure of the communications. The government does not have to demonstrate “probable cause” to obtain a court order (they can obtain a court order based on less than “probable cause”), but they must give the holder of the account notice of their intent to obtain the order and an opportunity to appear in court and oppose the disclosure of the records to the government. Like much else in the law, there is an exception to the rule requiring advance notice to the account holder. This exception allows the government to delay giving notice to the account holder where the government shows that, if notice is given, the account holder might destroy evidence, or physically harm or kill another person or flee or otherwise jeopardize the government’s investigation of the case. The SCA allows the government to delay giving notice for 90 days, with the ability to seek extensions if required.

Continue reading "HOW EASY SHOULD IT BE FOR YOUR UNCLE (YOUR UNCLE SAM THAT IS) TO SNOOP THROUGH YOUR E-MAIL ACCOUNT?" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Internet Crimes

Bookmark:

The rapid increase in the use of the Internet by people of all walks of life in the past decade has led to a steady increase in Internet crimes. Law enforcement agencies take Internet related crimes very seriously and go to great lengths to lure potential offenders.

Internet service providers are willing to work with law enforcement to make sure their on-line users do not facilitate crimes such as child exploitation and pornography, adult pornography, computer hacking and forms of child molesting or annoying minors. As such there are many “sting” operations within law enforcement agencies that attempt to lure curious on-line customers into chat rooms, to promote sending and downloading picture files and of course seek out potentially interested on-line users to meet persons they have spoken to over the web and carry out illegal activity.

The first crime law enforcement attempts to solicit is the passing of Obscene Material, which is found in C.P.C. § 311. This statute applies to all possessing and publishing for sale or distribution of sexual conduct by a minor. This statute was updated in 1999 to include storing images on hardware, software or any storage medium including CD-ROMS and any printing of a computer generated image.

Another popular law for law enforcement is the Sexual Exploitation of Minors found under C.P.C. § 311.3. This law is slightly different in that the defendant has to duplicate, develop, print or exchange an image or photo showing a minor engaging in an act of sexual conduct. This charge is aimed at the user rather than the distributor.

Continue reading "What Kinds of Crimes Can Be Committed On The INTERNET?" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Internet Crimes

Bookmark:

The popularity of the internet has grown and continues to grow among young people today as the internet can be used for a number of different resources ranging from talking with friends online to researching papers for school. A recent study found that 2 out of 3 preschoolers have already used a computer in their lives and have been on the internet. Although the internet may open new doors to many children, it may also expose them to unwanted sexual material and solicitation. Nearly 1 in 7 children ranging in age from 10-17 have received a sexual solicitation while online, and an even higher number have received unwanted sexual material while on the internet. It is important to know your rights and what is legal and illegal while on the internet.

It is against the law for any adult to send sexually explicit or obscene material to a minor while on the internet. It is also against the law for an adult to try and seduce a minor or arrange a meeting while online. Even if the adult does not show up to the arranged meeting, they can still be convicted of a misdemeanor and serve up to a year in prison. If the meeting does take place, an adult can serve up to four years in jail for online enticement.

The best way to prevent your children from being exposed to the dangers online is to monitor their activity while on the internet and make sure that they are visiting only safe, protected websites that you know about and have visited.

If you have any questions about laws regarding the internet or think we might be able to help you, please call Wallin & Klarich at 888-280-6839.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Internet Crimes

Bookmark: