So I’m reading about this Fort Hood shooter and stories are popping up saying that in the course of the investigation, police have seized the guy’s computer.
That brought something to mind: in any investigation, it seems that the guy’s personal property is always seized for some reason even if what he did, like this guy’s shooting spree, doesn’t have anything to do with his computer. When warrants are issued, don’t they have to be specific and limited to the case in some way? I don’t know how accurate Law and Order is, but I’ve seen episodes where the warrant was issued for the guy’s house but the cops weren’t allowed to search the car parked next to the house.
So what reason do the cops have to take a guy’s computer? It’s not like he hurled his computer at someone. Shouldn’t they be confining their investigation solely to the facts of the case, which is that he was shooting people?
How much control do you have over your property once you have been implicated in a crime? Is it the degree of the crime? Suppose a guy robs a liquor store and is caught on camera. Can the cops take his computer? What if he assaults someone with a crowbar? Would the cops be able to look through his safe deposit box?
They are actually well within the rights of search - he may have correspondence with terrorists, or diary entries indicating prior planning. There may be links to other terrorists [if in fact it was a terrorist oriented activity instead of just going nuts and shooting lots of people.]
The assault and battery with crowbar/safety deposit box issue: depends on the basic reason for the assault, was he screaming about jihad or something that would make the police want to investigate deeper? Did he rob the boozeria to finance a terrorist activity?
It all depends on what the reason for the crime is. If you knock over a boozeria for money for drugs, there is no reason to check out his computer. if he isnt a drug user/gambler and there seems to be a question about why, then they will investigate every link that they can think of to see if htere is terrorist activity happening. Also, if they are searching and see something that may indicate child abuse/porn, they will get an amended instrument and search for evidence on that that may include computer, safe deposite boxes or other properties associated with the guy [vacation cottage, girlfriends apartment … anywhere that evidence leads.]
Obviously, if they have independent musings to believe this is part of a larger conspiracy (terroristic or not) they will continue their investigation by getting a warrant for your computer.
Beyond that, though, I don’t think courts and cops look really into the “reason” for the crime. The prosecutor/cops will attempt to obtain a warrant for your computer, and succeed in doing so, if they have probable cause to believe that there would be evidence tending to implicate the accused in the crime and they need that information to solidify their case.
Is the DA soft on motive? computer may yield evidence
Does the DA need to prove mens rea? computer may yield evidence
the “reason” for the commission of the crime in these examples is independent of the purpose of the computer search.
and so on and so forth. the reason they probably don’t seize your computer in a routine knocking-off-the-liquor-store example is probably more to do with the utility of: taking the time to get the warrant, paying the cops and the forensic staff to go over and seize the computer, paying the forensic staff to properly search through the computer, etc. there’s no need to when you’ve got 3 eyewitnesses fingering you as the dude that busted into the beer cooler at benny’s world of booze. it’s got nothing to do with your “reason” for committing the crime.
I assume that the DA assigned to the Ft. Hood shooting is not going to be soft on evidence that the suspect held in the hospital actually shot people. There are plenty of eye witnesses for that, as well as fingerprints on the gun and ammo, and gunpowder residue on the suspect.
What they are doing is looking to see if there are any links to a conspiracy.
I think what thje OP is asking the same thing that struck me: On TV, they show that the investigators must explain to the judge (who is going to issue the warrant) what they expect to find on the computer. But in the Ft. Hood case, it appears more of a “fishing” expedition (justifiable, IMO, and absolutely prudent to check these things out), but I don’t see how the investigators can sincerely elaborate on what they expect to find on a computer.
Disclaimer: I realise my TV Law degree is worth exactly what I paid for it.
So, the only conclusion I can draw is that warrants can be drawn up to assist in the [del]fishing[/del] fact finding expeditions, and that TV lied to me again.
Depending upon what crime is being investigated, I would think that there may also be evidence of intent on the computer, which could be used to counter certain “I didn’t know what I was doing” defenses.
As I said, if it smells like a conspiracy, they’ll broaden their investigation. They would probably do it here as well in anticipation of an insanity plea by the accused. But these two rationales for searching the computer aren’t really based in the “reason” for the crime. Maybe I’m drawing a pretty fine line there, though, I don’t know.
The prove-up is like this:
DA: Judge, we caught some whacko shooting up an army base, we think that his computer will probably contain evidence that will help us in our prosecution. can we get a warrant?
Judge: sure thang. sounds reasonable to me.
If a gun used in a murder was not recovered, investigators can get warrants to see if the suspect had stashed murder weapon is in his home, even if the murder did not happen at that location. In this case, the suspect is a suspect based on other evidence, and the murder weapon will support that other evidence.
But the computer won’t establish the fact that the Army Major actually commited these actions, and actually would only (possibly) establish premeditated intent, or conspiracy, imo.
Like I said before, I assumed warrants had to have a reasonably well defined intent and scope, and may not be so vague as to allow “fishing expeditions”. If there was other evidence of a conspiracy, then you can get a warrant to see if, indeed, the computer can further support that. Barring any other clues, I don’t see how the detectives can reasonably assert that they hope to find evidence of a conspiracy.
I think it’s absolutely prudent to check into these things, but my nitpicky/rules lawyer side of my brain is nagging at me.
I will point out, to show how broad the search is, that the FBI seized the laptop of the neighbor who was letting the shooter use his wireless connection. The neighbor had given the shooter his password to his WIFI connection. Apparently the router is a software router in the man’s laptop. The FBI took the neighbor’s laptop.
Which is perfectly reasonable, if they had cause to seize the shooter’s computer in the first place. That opens the door to file sharing, and the shooter could have been storing something on the neighbor’s laptop.