Laptop seized, what to do?

[Sun Baked]

Not having read anything about him or his school outside of this discussion, I wouldn't know where to start to find the OP's school paper. But if he was involved in sending fake e-mails, then I agree that the situation is significantly different from him merely being an innocent lender.

That said, if he was involved in illegal activity, then that fact doesn't change the significance of the computer for the trial, nor does it obligate him to testify. It just means that there's basically no chance that the prosecutor will do the OP the favor of giving it back to him before the verdict is rendered, and -- depending on the particular facts -- might mean that the prosecutor is considering charging him as an accomplice.

In any case, it sounds like he should probably avoid posting about his involvement or experience online, and not be overly chatty with his school paper about the whole thing.

The thread is a poster whining about his seized computer, instead of forgetting about the machine and trying to save his own ass.

With multiple counties involved, multiple states, and likely the FBI looking over the shoulder -- crying to the prosecutor about the machine and asking for it back, could be bad.

The FBI posted a stern warning (the one about copycat threats) after the Virginia Tech shooting, and they still threatened a University Student and her mother --- ooops.

 

[compuwar]

I don't quite understand why they can't just remove the HD and give you back the computer. All the info they need is contained on that HD, not the MB itself. It's quite easy to remove at that.

It's pretty easy- the computer was the instrument of the crime, not just the hard drive. The prosecution will need to be able to show that (for instance) the timestamps on the drive relate to the time that's set on the system- which is kind of difficult to do without having the system available. You don't get your gun back minus the firing pin and barrel if it's used in a crime either- the evidence is the whole instrument of the crime, so that's what's seized, tagged and bagged and presented as an exhibit in court.

Also, in court you must present the actual evidence (so the defense may examine and challenge it) not a copy or written record (hearsay) of the evidence that can't stand up to a legal challenge.

It'd likely be possible to get a copy of the hard drive out of the computer forensics section of whoever seized it- either directly or through the court if direct doesn't work.

 

[iz3r]

I had something similar happen to me...

And they took get this... My Modded XBox, and my 360, because they had hard drives.... They also took my Windows desktop, which made me to switch to mac

Anyway the cop lied to me and told me it would only take two weeks... Yeah right! More like 1-2 years.

Listen here this "evidence" collection is crap. The police are the scum of the earth. They lie to you, they take your property, they do not protect us.

 

[compuwar]

I had something similar happen to me...

And they took get this... My Modded XBox, and my 360, because they had hard drives.... They also took my Windows desktop, which made me to switch to mac

Anyway the cop lied to me and told me it would only take two weeks... Yeah right! More like 1-2 years.

Listen here this "evidence" collection is crap. The police are the scum of the earth. They lie to you, they take your property, they do not protect us.

So, some investigator found enough evidence of something bad that they took it to a prosecutor (or grand jury,) who filed charges, then the investigator wrote out an affidavit and signed it, gave it to the prosecutor who took it to a judge who then signed a court order in the form of a search warrant for your house- which they executed? Ok, sometimes that system has issues, but in general the checks and balances work. So- was it accurate, or was there a specific part of the affidavit that was untrue?

If it's a computer crime, then it's processed as a computer crime scene- that means all the computers are siezed. You can thank the past criminals who've used game systems, cell phones and other electronic devices to commit their crimes. If they didn't seize anything that could have been used in the commission of the crime, then they'd be lambasted if criminals got away with their crimes- so what's the alternative? If they don't treat every case the same way procedure-wise then they'd be accused of favoritism. Plus, a fair number of folks who come to the attention of the criminal justice system for one crime don't just commit one crime, so everything needs to proceed in a way that doesn't contaminate the ability to go get more warrants if other crimes are discovered.

You can look at every successful prosecution for a computer crime to see that evidence collection does indeed work. The legislature is responsible for laws that suck and laws that don't suck. The judicial system is responsible for allowing prosecution, permitting warrants and subpoenas. Detectives are more about justice than protection, though there's the protective nature of removing the ability of criminals to perpetrate more crimes.

FWIW, the police are allowed to lie in order to gain the cooperation of a suspect. While circumstances may change the advisability of using that tool, it's often the thing that gets a criminal to admit to something, or assist in the investigation. That means that suspects who aren't the actual criminal get lied to too- it's an artifact of the system.

All the computer crime cops I know are so busy dealing with child pornography and computers potentially used in other crimes like homicides that they would do anything to not have to process systems where a crime wasn't committed, let alone do all the paperwork involved with a case if there's no chance of prosecution. Most prosecutors wouldn't file charges in a case they thought they'd lose too. So, how about outlining where things when wrong in your case?

Heck, I've had way more experience having trouble getting cases open with local cops than having cases opened frivolously when my customers have been victims of computer crime.