The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998 / hackers_encyclopedia.iso / zines / n_z / pirate5.009 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 11.2 KB | 304 lines

*************************************************** *** Pirate Magazine Issue I - 5 / File 9 of 11 *** *** E-Mail victims counter-sue the pheds *** *************************************************** The legal status of electronic mail is in limbo. It's not totally clear what consitutes protected "mail" and what doesn't. Because of lack of case law for precendent or statutory law to guarantee protections of Constitutional rights, agents seem to feel free to confiscate *and violate* rights first and ask questions later, as the above files indicate. Nonetheless, not everybody is passively submitting to these violations. The following is reprinted from TELECOM DIGEST, Vol 10, #164 (msg 1) from March 12, 1990. It is a suit against law enforcement agents who confiscated E-mail. We wish the plaintiffs the best of luck. If they win, there is hope. If they lose, we come closer to 1984 as time passes. ------------- CHRISTOPHER ASHWORTH, A Member of GARFIELD, TEPPER, ASHWORTH & EPSTEIN 1925 Century Part East, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (213) 277-1981 Attorneys For Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case NO. SA CV90-021 JSL (RwRx) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND DAMAGES (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986; 18 U.S.C. Section 2701, et seq.) H. KEITH HENSON, HUGH L. HIXON, JR., THOMAS K. DONALDSON, NAOMI REYNOLDS, ROGER GREGORY, MICHAEL G. FEDEROWITCZ, STEVEN B. HARRIS, BRIAN WOWK, ERIC GEISLINGER, CATH WOOF, BILLY H. SEIDEL, ALLEN J. LOPP, LEE CORBIN RALPH MERKEL, AND KEITH LOFTSTROM Plaintiffs, v. RAYMOND CARRILLO, SCOTT HILL, DAN CUPIDO, ALAN KUNZMAN, ROWE WORTHINGTON, RICHARD BOGAN, REAGAN SCHMALZ, GROVER TRASK, II, ROBERT SPITZER, LINFORD L. RICHARDSON, GUY PORTILLO, individuals, and the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a subdivision of the State of CAlifornia, And the CITY OF RIVERSIDE, a municipal entity, and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Defendants. Plaintiffs complain of defendants as follows: JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATION 1. This case arises under an Act of Congress, namely the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986; U.S.C. Section 2701, et Seq., and in particular, the civil enforcement Provisions thereof, 18 U.S.C. Section 2707. Venue is proper in this Court in that all of the defendants reside in this district. COMMON ALLEGATIONS 2. Plaintiffs are all individuals residing in various point and places in the United States. [except Brian Wowk who resides in Canada.] 3. Defendants Carillo, Hill, Cupido, Kuntzman, Worthington, Bogan, Schmalz, Trask, Spitzer, Hinman and Mosley are all employees of defendant County of Riverside, and at all times material, were acting within the course and scope of their employment. Defendants Richardson and Portillo are all employees of defendant City of Riverside and at all times material, were acting within the course and scope of their employment. Defendant County of Riverside ["county'] is a political subdivision of the State of California. Defendant City of Riverside ["city'] is a municipal entity located within California. Defendants Carillo, Hill, Cupido, Kuntzman, Worthington, Bogan, and Schmalz are employed by defendant County in the Office of the Riverside County Coroner. Defendants Trask, Spitzer, Hinman and Mosley are employed by the said county in the office of the District Attorney, Defendants Richardson and Portillo are employed by defendant City in the Riverside Police Department. ------------------- 4. All of the events complained of herein occurred within two years of the date of filing of the complaint. At all times material, Alcor Life Extension Foundation, a non-Profit corporation with its principal place of business in Riverside County, maintained facilities at its place of business whose purpose was to (in part) facilitate the sending and receipt of electronic mail ["E-mail"] via computer- driven modems and which electronic mail facility was utilized by the plaintiffs, and each of them. The Alcor Facility is remote in geographical location from all plaintiffs. 5. At all times material, each plaintiff had one or more E-mail messages abiding on electron or magnetic medial at the Alcor facility. Prior to [actually on] January 12, 1988, defendants procured from the Riverside Superior Court a search warrant which authorized, in general, a search of the facilities of Alcor. A true and correct copy of that search warrant is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A". The search warrant does not purport to reach, nor was it intended to reach, any of the E-mail of plaintiffs. 6. On January 12, 1988, defendant entered upon the Alcor premisses and removed many things therefrom including the electronic media containing plaintiffs' E-mail. 7. Contemporaneously with the seizure of the electronic media containing plaintiffs' E-mail, defendants were explicitly informed that they were seizing plaintiffs' E-mail which was not described either generally or specifically in the warrant hereinabove referred to. -------------- 8. No notice was given to any plaintiff by any defendant of the impending seizure of their E-mail. 9. In the process of procuring the warrant, neither the defendants nor anyone else made any showing that there was reason to believe that the contents of any of plaintiffs' E- mail was relevant to any law enforcement inquiry. 10. Subsequent to the execution of the warrant on January 12, 1988, no notice was given to any plaintiff by any government entity, including the defendants, nor any defendant herein, at any time, regarding the defendants acquisition and retention of plaintiffs' E-mail. 11. The court issuing the warrant in respect of the Alcor facility did not, prior to the issuance of the warrant nor at any other time, determine that notice to plaintiffs compromised any legitimate investigation within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. section 2705(a)(2). 12. Not withstanding that defendant and each of them were informed that they had taken, along with materials describe in the warrant, E-mall belonging to plaintiffs, said defendants knowingly and willfully (a) continued to access the electronic and magnetic media containing plaintiffs' E-mail and (b) continued to deny access to plaintiffs to such E-mail for many months although a demand was made for the return of the said E-mail. Defendants' wrongful access to and retention of plaintiffs' E-mail was intentional within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. section 2707. -------------- 13. Proximately caused by the unprivileged actions of the defendants hereinbefore described, each plaintiff has suffered damage in an amount to be proved at trial, but in no event less than $10,000 each. WHEREFORE plaintiffs pray: 1. For damages according to proof; 2. For cost of suit; 3. For Attorneys' fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 2707(b)(3); and 4. For such other and further relief as is required in the circumstances. Date: January 11, 1990 GARFIELD, TEPPER, ASHWORTH, AND EPSTEIN A Professional Corporation (signed) CHRISTOPHER ASHWORTH Attorneys for Plaintiffs -------------- Exhibit "A" COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SEARCH WARRANT To any Sheriff, Police Officer, Marshal or Peace Officer in the County of Riverside. Proof, by sworn statement, having been made this day to me by Alan Kunzman and it appearing that there is probable cause to believe that at the place and on the persons and in the vehicle(s) set forth herein there is now being concealed property which is: ____ stolen or embezzled property __x__ property and things used to commit a felony __x__ property possessed (or being concealed by another) with intent to commit a public offense __x__ property tending to show a felony was committed; YOU ARE THEREFORE COMMANDED TO SEARCH : the premises located at [description of Alcor address at 12327 Doherty St.] including all rooms attics, basements, storage areas, and other parts therein, garages, grounds and outbuilding and appurtenances to said premises; vehicles(s) described as follows: (not applicable) and the persons of (not applicable) for the following property: 1. All electronic storage devices, capable of storing, electronic data regarding the above records, including magnetic tapes, disc, (floppy or hard), and the complete hardware necessary to retrieve electronic data including CPU (Central Processing Unit), CRT (viewing screen, disc or tape drives(s), printer, software and service manual for operation of the said computer, together with all handwritten notes or printed material describing the operation of the computers (see exhibit A - search warrant no., 1 property to be seized #1) 2. Human body parts identifiable or belonging to the deceased, Dora Kent. 3. Narcotics, controlled substances and other drugs subject to regulation by the Drug Enforcement Administration. 4. Article of personal property tending to establish the identity of person in control of premise, vehicle, storage areas, and containers being searched, including utility company receipts, rent receipts, address envelopes and keys and to SEIZE it if found and bring it forthwith before me or this court at the courthouse of this court. Good cause being shown this warrant my be served at any time of the day or night as approve by my initials_________ Time of issuance _______ Time of execution __1600__ Given under my hand and dated this 12th day of January 1988 Thomas E. Hollenhorst Judge of the Superior Court ------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA H. KEITH HENSON, see attachment "A" PLAINTIFF(S) vs. RAYMOND CARRILLO, see attachment "A" DEFENDANTS(S) CASE NUMBER SA CV- 90-021 JSL Rw Rx SUMMONS ----------------------------------------------- TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S), your are hereby summoned and required to file with this court and serve upon Christopher Ashworth, Esq. GARFIELD, TEPPER, ASHWORTH & EPSTEIN A Professional Corporation Plaintiff's attorney, whose address is: 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, California 90067 (213) 277-1981 an answer to the complaint which is herewith serve upon you within __20__ days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Date Jan. 11, 1990 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT By MARIA CORTEZ Deputy Clerk (SEAL OF THE COURT) >--------=====END=====--------<