Home » Featured » Second Judge Suggests To Reject Evidence In FBI Mass Hack Case
Click Here To Hide Tor

Second Judge Suggests To Reject Evidence In FBI Mass Hack Case

Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary is the second judge in the FBI mass hack case who just suggested throwing out the evidence obtained by a piece of malware that the federal agency had previously uploaded on the infiltrated PlayPen child porn site (as part of Operation Pacifier) back in February 2015. On April 25, the judge just recommended the evidence to be suppressed in a similar case.

The new recommendation relates to Scott Fredrick Arterbury, who was arrested in November 2015 in Oklahoma and was charged with the possession of child pornography content. Judge Cleary made this statement in his report:

“This Court finds that the NIT (network investigative technique) warrant was not authorized by any of the applicable provisions of Rule 41. The warrant is void ab initio, suppression is warranted and the good-faith exception is inapplicable”

Rule 41 governs when judges can issue warrants for search and seizures. In this case, legal problems can come when the Federal Bureau of Investigation hacks computers in unknown locations.

Cleary also added to other instances of the Playpen investigation, and to last week’s decision, to throw out evidence. The key issue is with the judge’s decision of signing the NIT warrant, Magistrate Judge Theresa C Buchanan in the Eastern District of Virginia, who had the authority to green-light a search outside of her district. However, the Department of Justice had claimed the search took place in the Eastern District of Virginia, where the government facility running the PlayPen server was located.

Cleary, on the other hand, agreed with Arterbury’s defense in the point that the police search occurred on the suspect’s computer in Oklahoma, which is clearly outside of Virginia. This is almost the same what Judge William G Young in Massachusetts wrote in his ruling last week.

“The property seized in this instance was Arterbury’s computer, which at all relevant times remained in Oklahoma,” Cleary stated.

Law enforcement authorities are sometimes granted a good-faith exception on Rule 41 in cases where investigators are thought to have acted on what they believed to be a legal warrant. However, Judge Cleary says that it does not apply for Arterbury’s case since the man’s house search would not happen at all if it wasn’t for violation.

Arterbury’s trial is set for the date of May 17.

5 comments

  1. Even if the FBI drops the cases, the lives of those 100+ people are screwed, and rightfully so. 1 background check will reveal their dirty secret for all future jobs they apply to. Good luck getting settled in a new neighborhood as soon as 1 person finds out and warns the rest.

    • Anonymouse

      I think the FBI actually wants to lose the case to show the legislature how weak the FBI’s powers are (even though they’re already extreme), and persuade them to write even more laws (similar to rule 41) to give them even more power and wider reach. Winning this case won’t get them what they really want. Do you think any legislator will really say no to them, when they explain they had to release 135 pedophiles because the FBI didn’t have the legal authority to prosecute them? And then if they chose to use the media as a voice, what do you think they public’s reaction will be when they hear that many pedophiles had to be released? The 90%+ majority will be for giving the FBI powers because the general public doesn’t understand what’s really happening, they’ll just hear the FBI had to let pedophiles go because the FBI needs more power. Plus as soon as they’re granted even more power, guess which users they’ll be revisiting?

      They also have identified over 1,000 users from this. As soon as they get whatever legislation passed that they want, they’ll test it out on the next group of users, until they can finally prosecute anyone committing a crime online whether they use tor, i2p or freenet. Simple but powerful.

    • Screwthat

      So you are saying you favor guilty until proven innocent?

      • Something

        Anyone with kids isn’t going to ask themselves that question. They just want to protect their kids. Parents don’t let their kids go around even people that have been found innocent of these cases. Its not a moral or ethical issue, its more of a natural instinct of protection and survival when it comes to people and their kids. Don’t be mad because parents are doing their job.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Captcha: *