Soliciting some advice on a computer-related legal issue 10

[SantaMufasa]

I know that probably none of us are lawyers (and we don't even play one on TV), but I invite your advice here (since this is the "Ethics..." forum).

I am acquainted with a fine young man (age 26). He and a roommate (Roommate #1) sublet an extra room in their home that they own to another fellow (Roommate #2) some time back. Roommate Number #1 owned a computer that they kept in the living room of the apartment. Roommate #2 occasionally surfed the web on the machine.

Roommate #2 subsequently moved out.

Recently, law enforcement officials showed up on their doorstep, had a warrant for (and confiscated) the computer. They had IP-address records linking the computer to child-porn downloads. Subsequently, the officials apparently resurrected (deleted) child porn images from the disk drive, dated during the period when Roommate #2 was there.

Neither this young man nor Roommate #1 knew anything about the images. Roommate #2 has disappeared.

The law-enforcement officials have shown no interest in locating the apparent perpetrator. Roommate #1 is facing prison time for the images since the machine is his. The two apparently innocent roommates face loss of their home and bankruptcy over this issue. They can affort only an overworked public defender that is simply going through the motions and not mounting any real defense. The police officer in charge is apparently "The Cop From Hell" that you see on TV shows and movies that pursues the wrong guy because he has enough evidence to convict.

I know that no one should ever allow someone else to use their machine for just exactly this type of risk, but when you consider how many times we might have allowed someone besides ourselves to use our computer, I can say, "There, but for the Grace of God, go I."

I hate to see either of these young men have their lives badly damaged and suffer consequences that they do not deserve.

Any advice?


Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]

 

[kmcferrin]

I need help keeping this straight. Was the "focus roommate" the same as "Roommate #1" (the allegedly innocent PC owner), or "Roommate #2" (the person suspected of having downloaded the porn)? If the former, then that is indeed very sad.

What are the takeaway lessons here? Based on this situation, what do we think are prudent steps to protect ourselves from similar issues?

 

[Bandenjamin]

And one other question, is your friend off the hook? or was he the "focus roommate"?

This makes me even more disgruntled at our current legal system.

--Dan
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
Mark Twain

 

[SantaMufasa]

The "focus roommate" is the person suspected of having downloaded the porn and is also the PC owner.

It is a very sad situation.

I had a virtually similar situation happen to me a few weeks ago while I was travelling with friends in the Philippines: I was the only traveller with an Internet-accessible PC. Everyone of the group asked me if they could use my PC to "check their e-mail".

One of the borrowers was the 19-year-old boyfriend of the 18-year-old daughter of the family with whom I was travelling. I woke up one morning to find two windows left open that contained hardcore video playing on repeating loops.

I was furious that someone would compromise me and my corporate PC in such a way...And the stupidity of leaving things in plain view was remarkable to me.

It didn't take me long to figure out who did it. I had a heart-to-heart talk with the perp, explaining to him that my job was at risk since my company monitors illicit navigations on corporate equipment.

At first he denied it. I went through the list of people that had access to my machine, including his girl friend, and I asked him if he wanted me to gather everyone around and confront all of them on this breach of my trust. With a deer-in-the-headlights look, he admitted his misbehaviour. (I guess the silver lining to the access was that it was not "kiddie porn" and that it was only live-action intercourse from a site featuring adults. )

I had him write and date a letter "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN", relating what he had done and apologising for his misbehaviour. I'm keeping it in case my company confronts me about the incident.

But this shows how otherwise-innocent-looking accesses of our machines could heavily compromise us.

Amongst the "take-aways" from these experiences of letting someone use your machine are:

[ul][li]Allowing such access is like giving a person your debit card and PIN. If you wouldn't loan your debit card, then don't loan your computer, even to family and friends.[/li][li]Create password-only access to log in to your personal or corporate PCs...Don't leave your machine unlocked, even if you get up to get a bite to eat or go to the restroom.[/li][li]Unless you've decided to personally participate in porn sites, install "Nanny-watch" protective software on your machine[/li][li]If you decide that there is a reason to let someone use your machine, check the web-browsing "History" and "Cache" after others' uses. If either has disappeared, then that is a red flag that perhaps the user cannot be trusted with your machine in the future. Also, document in a spreadsheet, the dates/times and names of anyone using your machine. (If all of this seems a hassle to you, then consider the hassle of a 7-20-year prison term, for you or for them.)...Just say "No".[/li][/ul]

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]

 

[Stella740pl]

The defense attorney went to a pre-trial briefing with the prosecution. She determined that the prosecution was planning to pull out all the stops and go for the maximum penalty (20+ years).

Bad things sometimes happen to good people, but in this case, it seems to me that the "focus roommate" either found himself a very bad lawyer, or was not as innocent as he said he was.

A good lawyer would probably know how to defend a person that is really innocent, find experts in the appropriate field to testify, find other ways/people/proofs that might help, and probably try to talk the guy into at least trying to go to trial and prove that he is innocent and get away a free person. They seemed to not even consider that. Wouldn't they be able to make that deal during the trial, if they see that there is no way to get out?

So it is either 20 yers, or admit that you are guilty and take 7 to 9 years? Not even a chance to prove his innocence? Something is wrong with this picture.
A lawer doesn't feel she could do anything at all to an innocent guy, or maybe she knows something we don't know (that he is not that innocent), or the guy doesn't trust the lawer he hired to defend him, or all of the above.
Weird. And scary.

Or they plan to file an appeal?

 

[SantaMufasa]

At this point, Stella, you know what I know.

If it were I, even if there was a truckload of circumstantial evidence against me, and even if I knew that the investigators/prosecutors were "out to get me", I would rather fight and lose than admit to something I didn't do.

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]

 

[kmcferrin]

I agree. I would rather fight and risk losing than to admit something that wasn't true. But then I don't know this person's circumstances. Or the lawyer. I suspect that facing the potential of 20 years looks pretty grim when you could just get it over with by taking 1/3 the time. If you're fairly young (heck, I'm only 33), I could do 7 years and still have a decent amount of time ahead of me to have a family, travel, and generally life. But 20 years...

Not to mention court costs. I suspect that just accepting the plea deal cost thousands of dollars in court an attorney's fees. Fighting it could cost many times that, and since it's a criminal case there's nobody to collect lawyer's fees from if you're acquitted. So even if you win, you might be tens of thousands of dollars in debt (which is still better than being in prison).

But all of those decisions do weigh I suspect.

I happen to be married, and my wife and I do share our PC and laptop. But I do have separate accounts set up for each of us, and we don't know each other's passwords, and there are additional accounts for frequent houseguests (mostly in-laws). Hopefully that would be sufficient to segregate things enough that if something happened to us, we would be able to rule in/out certain suspects.

 

[Stella740pl]

If you're fairly young (heck, I'm only 33), I could do 7 years and still have a decent amount of time ahead of me to have a family, travel, and generally life.

You got to be joking. After serving a jail time, with this kind of conviction, all other possible issues aside (and there would be many, including psychological, family, health, etc.) do you think you would be able to get a job good enough to have money for travel? You will need many more years to get back on your feet.

They can affort only an overworked public defender that is simply going through the motions and not mounting any real defense.

That's probably the main problem here. Heck, after hearing that the prosecution is out to get him a maximum of 20 years, before accepting any bargain plea deals, he should have fired his public defender, reach out to family and friends and ask them to hold a fundraiser for him in order to get a proper lawyer. He than could have a real chance to be free and clear of all the charges, even though severely indebted. It is very well worth it.

 

[harebrain]

Or they plan to file an appeal?

IANAL. That said, to accept a plea-bargain you must plead guilty. And there's no appealing that.

 

[Stella740pl]

I thought of that, too.
I really don't know, it might not be called appeal, it can be called something else, but can they argue that he was coerced to make that plea, or something to that effect? Because a prospect of spending next 20 years in jail can scare daylight out of anyone, and cloud one's judgment, or even make them lose all brains at all (as it probably happened in this case) and admit to anything, just to get a (seemingly) lesser term.

 

[SQLSister]

He'll pay for this for the rest of his life even after he gets out as he is now labeled a sex offender. He'll have to register his whereabouts forever and his neighbors will be able to look him up online and then object to him living intheir neighborhood and pressure him to leave. A sad case all around.

"NOTHING is more important in a database than integrity." ESquared

 

[harebrain]

can they argue that he was coerced to make that plea, or something to that effect? Because a prospect of spending next 20 years in jail can scare daylight out of anyone, and cloud one's judgment,... and admit to anything, just to get a (seemingly) lesser term.

Not in the US. One of the reasons you have an attorney is to keep you from doing anything insane, such as admitting to a crime you didn't commit. Your attorney also is supposed to protect you from coersive methods. One can always appeal on the grounds of incompetent counsel, but having admitted guilt it's unlikely such an appeal would be heard.

 

[kmcferrin]

Not in the US. One of the reasons you have an attorney is to keep you from doing anything insane, such as admitting to a crime you didn't commit. Your attorney also is supposed to protect you from coersive methods. One can always appeal on the grounds of incompetent counsel, but having admitted guilt it's unlikely such an appeal would be heard.

And for a good example, look at Senator Craig who pled guilty to the bathroom shennanigans. Once the news broke he tried to take back the plea and they wouldn't let him. Of course, he was also a lawyer and he entered the plea by mail long after the fact, so he didn't have much of an argument of coercion.

Now, if it were a case where the cops picked you up and intimidated/coerced you into confessing to something without you having seen a lawyer, that's a different story, and that sort of thing certainly does happen sometimes. But entering a plea in court with counsel isn't even close to the same thing.

 

[kaptlid]

After reading all of this I get the impression that I should not let anyone use any of my computers period. And that includes "trusted" friends and family.

 

[SantaMufasa]

Kaptlid,

Yep...that's the lesson that I'm taking from this tragedy. If you wouldn't give your bank PIN to someone, then don't give access to your computer, either.

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]

 

[Welshbird]

I do allow friends to use my laptop often, but never ever under my login. I never have done actually.

Fee

The question should be [red]Is it worth trying to do?[/red] not [blue] Can it be done?[/blue]