Judge Says FBI's Child Porn Investigation Bordered On 'Outrageous,' Lets It Keep All Of Its Evidence
from the this-troubles-me-but-not-enough-to-actually-do-anything-about-it dept
Another ruling [PDF] has been handed down in the FBI's multitudinous Playpen cases, this one consolidating four defendants in a Washington federal court. While the court does find aspects of the FBI's child pornography distribution unpleasant, it's not enough to result in anything more than some stern words. All evidence remains unsuppressed and all motions to compel discovery are denied. (h/t Brad Heath)
This was everything that was done with a single, Virginia-issued warrant.
For approximately 14 days, from February 20, 2015 through March 4, 2015, the FBI administered Website A from a government-controlled computer server located in Virginia, which forwarded a copy of all website communications to FBI personnel in Linthicum, Maryland. Once deployed by the Government, the NIT gathered approximately nine thousand IP addresses, approximately seven thousand of which were associated with computers in one of more than one-hundred countries other than United States. Dkt. 90-1 at 3, 5. The FBI maintains that it did not post content itself, but concedes that it allowed registered users to access the site, view and download child pornographic content for distribution, and post new content, including 44 “new” series of data. Id. at 3. Some website users commented on technical improvements to the site while under FBI control. Dkt. 90-3. A NIT has been relied on by the FBI in at least twenty-three other investigations. Dkt. 100.
Following this, the court explains that the FBI's in camera, ex parte submissions justify its refusal to release more information on its NIT. Because of the nature of the submissions, there's obviously not much to be gleaned from this "discussion," other than it won't be happening.
From there, the court lists several FBI activities that could be labeled "outrageous conduct:"
(1) The Government ignored the statute forbidding such conduct: “In any criminal proceeding, any property or material that constitutes child pornography . . . shall remain in the care, custody and control of either the Government or the Court.” 18 U.S.C § 3509(m).
(2) The Government facilitated the continued availability of Website A, a site containing hundreds of child pornographic images for criminal users around the world.
(3) The Government, in fact, improved Website A’s technical functionality.
(4) The Government re-victimized hundreds of children by keeping Website A online.
(5) The Government used the child victims as bait to apprehend viewers of child pornography without informing the victims and without the victims’ permission—or that of their families.
(6) The Government’s actions placed any lawyer involved in jeopardy for violating ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4, and raise serious ethical and moral issues for counsel.
The court even calls out the government for its backward thinking -- that such things shouldn't be considered "outrageous" by courts because the criminals they were after were such terrible people.
The only justification for the acts of the Government, as provided by counsel, is that the end justifies the means, or in the Government’s words, “Because those who create, obtain, trade, distribute and profit from the imagery of the rape and sexual exploitation of children have turned to Tor in an effort to hide their activities, the United States has been forced to employ creative means to unmask the individuals engaging in the destructive and heinous criminal conduct.”
Despite all of this, the court lets the government slide. The balancing test doesn't tip in the defendants' favor. The government can cross many, many lines before the court starts adding tension to the leash. In these consolidated cases, the court doesn't like what it sees in terms of the FBI's actions, but still doesn't see enough to dismiss the charges.
Not only that, but the court finds that the violations of Rule 41 jurisdictional limits and alleged lack of probable cause should have no effect on the collected evidence. The information collected by the NIT -- namely, the suspects' IP addresses -- has "no expectation of privacy." Anything else that colored outside the lines of statutes and laws can be excused through the good faith exception. The NIT warrant was facially valid, according to the court, even if the agent filing the affidavit may have known the search would exceed jurisdictional limits. The court finds a way around this by citing the DOJ's letter containing its proposed Rule 41 changes (introduced by the defendants as evidence that the DOJ knew it was breaking the rules with the NIT warrant), rather than the expected precedential case law.
The DOJ letter reveals an intent to improve the rule, which does not rule out the possibility that DOJ could have considered Rule 41(b) sufficiently flexible to address changes in technology. See also, Dkt. 104-1. Furthermore, the record is silent as to the magistrate judge’s thoughts regarding the scope of the warrant at the time it was issued, and speculation on that subject is fruitless. The record does not show deliberate disregard.
In the end, the government wins. It gets to walk away from its outrageous conduct with (most likely) four new convictions and nothing but some lightly-singed feelings from an opinion front-loaded with a judicial benchslap. The rest is pretty much history. Whatever cases might fall apart because of what Rule 41 used to be will no longer be an issue in the future, as the DOJ's jurisdiction "fix" is now law.
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: 4th amendment, child porn, doj, fbi, malware, nit, outrageous, playpen
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yet we see nothing of these people being prosecuted (maybe because they are above the law?).
When nefarious tactics are used by LEO's to find perpetrators of various kinds of activities, then the LEO's become no better (and generally worse) than the criminals they are supposed to be tracking.
Tracking and findings pigs does not mean you have to get down in the mud with them. This applies to every agency whether or not they be one of the three letter kind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
History Repeats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: History Repeats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illegal to download?
If I distributed such images I would be in jail, how can the government do the same and not see any consequences?
Could I be found not guilty by providing the government of IP addresses that downloaded stuff and say "but I was just doing an investigation to catch these pervs!"? If I can't get away with such claims how can the government?
Shame on me to think law was applied equally to everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illegal to download?
The Government distributed child pornography. It re-victimized hundreds of children, andused victims of child abuse as bait.
Forget having the evidence thrown out, whoever signed off on this should be in prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Illegal to download?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Horrible
The FBI broke the law. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION. The agents involved should be prosecuted for distributing child porn and the lawyers involved disbarred.
The stepped over a line and if someone doesn't smack them upside the head, they'll do it again and they'll do worse.
“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Horrible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Faux Outrage!!!
It's all an act until a judge actually orders a bailiff to arrest the prosecution on charges of "distribution of child pornography".
This is the court today ladies and gentlemen... a 3 ring circus running entirely for the entertainment of the federal government. Every constitutional law and governing statute has been ignored extensively to fit the mood of the Judicial Patsy of the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would bet anything that if you went and published the ip's of the Judges home's that think this, all of a sudden there would be an expectation of privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sauce for the goose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sauce for the goose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next time, don't bother
If the judge is going to act 'outraged' but give the government everything they want then they might as well save everyone the effort, leave the court for a 'lunch break' and tell the government to write up any ruling they want, they'll sign it without reading when they get back.
If a judge is going to act like a rubber stamp leave the faux 'outrage' at the door, you're not fooling anyone. Just sit down, shut up, and sign the papers the government hands you like a good little tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Next time, don't bother
I infer that the term "outrageous" may be a term of art, probably used / defined in some relevant statute, and by saying that the FBI's conduct "bordered on" the "outrageous" the judge is saying that the conduct comes close to but does not quite cross the line into a violation of the statute in question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Short of a finding of unconstitutionality (which wasn't at issue here), since when does the judiciary have the power to pick and choose the laws it will enforce?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]