Google Searches Used To Convict Hit-And-Run Driver

from the google-searches-in-a-court-of-law dept

Fri, Jan 16th 2009 1:53pm — Mike Masnick

In the past, we've noted various lawsuits where Google searches done by the accused were used against them in a court of law. There was the guy who searched on "neck snap break," days before his wife was murdered, and then there was the woman who searched on "how to commit murder" and other rather damning phrases like "instant poison" and "undetectable poisons," before her husband was murdered. In yet another such case, an investment banker has been convicted of a hit-and-run that killed a woman, after his Google searches soon after the accident turned up the phrase "hit and run." The guy had claimed that he believed he hit a deer, but his Google searches suggested he knew it was a person. Beyond just searching for the phrase hit and run, he also did searches on: "auto glass reporting requirements to law enforcement," "auto glass, Las Vegas," auto parts, auto theft, and the Moraga Police Department. Since the incident was in California, the thinking was he was looking to get the damage to his car repaired out of state to avoid any suspicion from the auto repair place. While the guy appealed the ruling saying that even with those searches he didn't have any actual knowledge he had hit a person, the appeals court didn't find that to be very convincing.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: conviction, google searches, hit and run

14 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

TriZz, 16 Jan 2009 @ 2:42pm

I didn't RTFA...
Were these search results provided by Google or were they provided by the auto-complete form in his browser?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2009 @ 3:05pm
  
  Re: I didn't RTFA...
  Since they said in the article they found out via searching his computer, my guess would be autocomplete/history.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Potato Head, 16 Jan 2009 @ 3:44pm

Thats why...
Thats why I do all my damning searches on a remote host
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
zcat, 16 Jan 2009 @ 4:12pm

ubuntu live cd
although I do wonder how much Google would hand over if someone were able to get a warrant.. The ISPs seem more than willing to hand over details of who used what IP when, even without a warrant, so no need to speculate there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hegemon13, 16 Jan 2009 @ 4:24pm
  
  Re: ubuntu live cd
  With a warrant, I would imagine Google would hand over whatever was requested, as they should. I have no problem with a service provider turning over information, as long as the proper procedures have been followed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Xanius, 16 Jan 2009 @ 5:00pm

New privacy feature slogan
Sounds like IE8 and chrome have a new slogan for privacy mode.
"Use it and you can get away with murder!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- zcat, 16 Jan 2009 @ 5:36pm
  
  Re: New privacy feature slogan
  Not really. If the police had strong enough suspicions to persuade a judge and get a warrant I'm pretty sure google would hand over the search records. And I know the ISP would help them tie the IP address to the customer 'cos they'll do that for the MAFIAA even without a warrant.
  
  If I planned to murder anyone and used teh intarweb for any of the planning, I'd be sure to use tor first and dban afterwards..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
inc, 17 Jan 2009 @ 9:36am

Ubuntu Live CD behind the tor network people.. jeez
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sos, 18 Jan 2009 @ 2:37pm

Since there is no enforcement of non-repudiation in google searches, how did they prove it was him that made the search in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill, 18 Jan 2009 @ 2:44pm

cicumstantial evidence
If the foundation of the case was his use of google it seems extremely flimsy to me. I use google all the time and if someone were to pick & choose key words I'm sure they could make my searches fit any case they want to throw at me. Likewise, I think the guy got shafted, tossed in the pokey on circumstancial evidence that shouldn't hold water. Unless someone can get him to confess or he fails a polygraph - no one really has a clue as to what he knew. The searches can infer his thought process at the time, but it alone should not be construed as intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 19 Jan 2009 @ 7:37am

Missing information???
I dont think any judge would convict on this flimsy evidence. We are probly missing information here. They Probly had other evidence against him but this evidence was used to make the conviction more harsh. Hit and run thinking you hit a deer chance of getting manslauter which carries a liter sentance. Hit and run trying to hide from police nowing you hit a persone if found hit and run to be accidental Murder 2nd dagree. I could be wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bryce, 28 Feb 2009 @ 6:32pm

Not flimsy
If you read the full story, they found the womans earing in the drain under the windshield.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
frank, 26 May 2009 @ 5:34am

well, still: in a criminal case guilt must be prooven beyond reasonable doubt. that google evidence might be damning in a civil case, where it's just about what is more likely, but not in a criminal one.
i suspect there must have been more evidence...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
frank, 26 May 2009 @ 5:34am

well, still: in a criminal case guilt must be prooven beyond reasonable doubt. that google evidence might be damning in a civil case, where it's just about what is more likely, but not in a criminal one.
i suspect there must have been more evidence...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]