Appeals Court Upholds Life Sentences For Silk Road Mastermind
from the 'plus-cancer'-sentencing-enhancement-considered-reasonable dept
Ross Ulbricht -- sentenced to two life sentences for running a dark web drug marketplace -- has just had his appeal rejected by the Second Circuit Appeals Court. Ulbricht raised several challenges to the verdict and sentence, including the denials of his motion to suppress, motion for a new trial, and several alleged errors by the district court. He also challenged the reasonableness of the sentence (which certainly seems unreasonable): two life sentences plus a judgment holding him personally financially responsible for every drug transaction on the Silk Road ($184 million).
On the Fourth Amendment grounds, the appeals court panel determined IP addresses have no more expectation of privacy than dialed phone numbers -- no warrants needed. Ulbricht pointed out a lot has changed, even in terms of jurisprudence, since 1979's Smith v. Maryland decision (the basis for the Third Party Doctrine) but the appeals court isn't interested in setting new precedent [PDF link].
[W]hatever novel or more intrusive surveillance techniques might present future questions concerning the appropriate scope of the third-party disclosure doctrine, the orders in this case do not present such issues. The recording of IP address information and similar routing data, which reveal the existence of connections between communications devices without disclosing the content of the communications, are precisely analogous to the capture of telephone numbers at issue in Smith… The substitution of electronic methods of communication for telephone calls does not alone create a reasonable expectation of privacy in the identities of devices with whom one communicates. Nor does it raise novel issues distinct from those long since resolved in the context of telephone communication…
Ulbricht struck out on every other appealed issue as well. The court found the warrants issued to search Ulbricht's accounts and devices were broad, but sufficiently particular. That the FBI may have had to dig through plenty of irrelevant files just to get what it was looking for is irrelevant. The judges point out simple keyword searches would have been defeated by actions Ulbricht took to obscure the contents of files, like name a folder of Tor chat logs "mbsobzvkhwx4hmjt."
As for the supposed errors committed by the trial court, the one discussed the longest is the denial of Ulbricht's motion to obtain grand jury evidence used in the indictment of DEA agent Carl Force, who stole Bitcoin and sold the movie rights to his Dread Pirate Roberts investigation, all while still on the clock. The court agrees Force's actions were reprehensible and reflected badly on the government, but the evidence itself was of no value to Ulbricht's defense. (Obviously, this theory can't be tested post facto.) The court, however, makes the point that there's little use in attacking the credibility of a witness the government isn't interested in making available.
The government’s commitment to eliminating all evidence that came from Force’s work on the Silk Road investigation further undermines Ulbricht’s claim that he needed the information to avoid a possible injustice. Had Force been called as a government witness, or had any of the government’s evidence relied on his credibility, his character for truthfulness would have been at issue during the trial, and information that impeached his credibility would have become highly relevant. Ulbricht’s reliance on the general fact of cooperation among different government agencies and different U.S. Attorney’s Offices does not undermine the government’s explicit representations that none of the evidence presented at trial derived from Force, and nothing in the record suggests that those representations were false. Ulbricht had no need to rely on the grand jury investigation of Force to attack the credibility of the actual government witnesses or the integrity of its other evidence.
The appeals court goes on to deny every challenge, leaving Ulbricht back where he started: facing life without parole. The judges aren't entirely unsympathetic to Ulbricht's challenge of the sentence's reasonableness, but they note this is how American society as a whole has decided drug dealers should be treated.
At this point in our history, however, the democratically-elected representatives of the people have opted for a policy of prohibition, backed by severe punishment. That policy results in the routine incarceration of many traffickers for extended periods of time.
This indictment of the public is no more reasonable than the sentence handed to Ulbricht because you go to the polls with the candidates you have. And many candidates have made long careers out of long drug sentences, thanks to endless PR campaigns by our nation's law enforcement agencies, who themselves rely on draconian policies to keep themselves federally funded.
And there were aggravating factors which cannot be undone simply because actions bought and paid for apparently were never carried out.
[T]he facts of this case involve much more than simply facilitating the sale of narcotics. The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Ulbricht commissioned at least five murders in the course of protecting Silk Road’s anonymity, a finding that Ulbricht does not challenge in this appeal. Ulbricht discussed those anticipated murders callously and casually in his journal and in his communications with the purported assassin Redandwhite.
[...]
The attempted murders for hire separate this case from that of an ordinary drug dealer, regardless of the quantity of drugs involved in the offense, and lend further support to the district court’s finding that Ulbricht’s conduct and character were exceptionally destructive. That he was able to distance himself from the actual violence he paid for by using a computer to order the killings is not mitigating.
[...]
[I]n evaluating Ulbricht’s character and dangerousness, the most relevant points are that he wanted the murders to be committed, he paid for them, and he believed that they had been carried out. The fact that his hired assassin may have defrauded him does not reflect positively on Ulbricht’s character. Commissioning the murders significantly justified the life sentence.
In the end, it appears Ulbricht was the guy he never wanted to be: a violent drug dealer. He may have fired up the Silk Road with the best of worst intentions -- a utopian deep web drug market that could have removed some of the danger associated with buying and selling drugs. But by the end of it, he was apparently ordering hits and rationalizing away the sale of cyanide.
The sentence upheld here reflects that, but it also indicates the government is still inconsistent, even with a stack of sentencing minimums to work with. The government got its man, but it also showed it's willing to pin life sentences on third party marketplace facilitators, which is a bit like locking up Backpage execs because sex traffickers use their site to… oh wait.
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, appeal, ross ulbricht, silk road
Companies: silk road
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Example
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Slight difference
I don't think that comparison is quite valid. Backpage is a site that is used, incidentally, by some people involved in illegal activities - but silk roads was designed and operated SPECIFICALLY AND INTENTIONALLY for illegal activities.
And personally, I think contracting a murder or two DOES justify a life sentence - there's a big difference between that and mere "third party marketplace facilitation".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
https://www.wired.com/2015/04/silk-road-1/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What's the deal with that last sentence?
FTFY
If any drug dealer is going to land life in prison, he certainly deserves to join their ranks.
(Oh, and the "I am not the real Dread Pirate Roberts; his name is Karpeles, and he's been living like a king in Japan these past several years" defense wasn't exactly a great idea either.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Slight difference
[ link to this | view in thread ]
** AND ORDERING MULTIPLE FUCKING MURDERS
.
YES, WHAT AN UNREASONABLE SENTENCE FOR SOMEONE WHO ORDERED MULTIPLE FUCKING MURDERS
.
"Oh, such a travesty of justice."
"Oh, what an unreasonable sentence."
--Tim Cushing
meh, let's put this minor footnote at the bottom of the article.
"HE ORDERED MULTIPLE FUCKING MURDERS."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
but the sentencing mentions them, so part of his sentence is based on charges that were never brought or argued. His lawyer sucks balls, in my opinion.
I still have a problem with this case in that they are prosecuting the infrastructure provider for 3rd party content. If this is the standard, why then are they not prosecuting Fed-ex for shipping drugs, or Zuckerberg for Facebook snuff streams, or E-bay for fraud, etc. The whole idea of prosecuting infrastructure providers for activities carried out by users is bullshit.
And the fact that that this 3 person panel of judges (Judicial Branch) blames their decision to uphold an unconstitutionally harsh punishment on the Legislative Branch, ("the democratically-elected representatives of the people have opted for a policy of prohibition, backed by severe punishment") of whom they are constitutionally independent, is cowardly and hints of corruption.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
He's Worse
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That was only the first hit
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FedEx doesn't market to drug dealers
Silk Road openly sold itself as a site to trade criminal contraband, which is kind of a description of "Conspiracy to Sell [x]". They were far more than just a disinterested provider of generic services that happened to end up in the middle of various criminal enterprises.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Right. Marijuana isn't being legalized all around, because society agreed we should be thought on drugs, right? And prohibiting alcohol worked wonders, right? I have no sympathy for the guy but stop saying bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This indictment of the public is no more reasonable than the sentence handed to Ulbricht because you go to the polls with the candidates you have. And many candidates have made long careers out of long drug sentences, thanks to endless PR campaigns by our nation's law enforcement agencies, who themselves rely on draconian policies to keep themselves federally funded.
Of course, we can still expect the same anti-regulation dumbfuck to crow his victory about everyone else making or not making the right or wrong decision that may or may not have actually been or not been a choice for which they may or may not have any significant or insignificant influence...
Because he just wants to crow that he's decided that we're all idiots.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Slight difference
Absolutely. But on the other hand, if he's going to be sentenced based on alleged attempted murder, my idea of due process demands that he actually be convicted of attempted murder, and not just be an "oh, by the way, he probably did this other crime we didn't want to actually prosecute."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: FedEx doesn't market to drug dealers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the brainwashing is now complete
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: FedEx doesn't market to drug dealers
Maybe the US government should stop selling drugs.
The US government grows, imports and sells tons upon tons of narcotics in the US every year. What the government sells in terms of drugs far surpasses anything the silk road could ever dream of. Ross Ulbrict is a scapegoat to protect the lie that the government doesn't want people to take drugs. Of course they do, they make so much money off of it. Coming and going.
According to former head of the DEA Robert Bonner, the US government is responsible for bringing tons of drugs into the US and has been for decades. Hypocrisy much?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFS4IAQpQKw
US soldiers protecting opium poppy fields.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW2YWqVpT4E
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Did anyone else notice
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anonymous coward is everyone
i have a password somewhere... and a user name.. uh
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The evidence for attempted murder wasn't presented at trial.
This loophole where the sentencing guidelines allow for consideration of evidence that wouldn't be allowed in trial is deeply troubling from a due process standpoint and has been repeatedly abused.
The FBI also appears to have used parallel construction to gin up technically unconvincing evidence for how they located the servers with some very convincing arguments from skeptics that the real source of the location was from NSA.
[1] There were at least two different prosecutions of law enforcement from different agencies. I didn't bother reviewing to sort out which ones committed which crimes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don't blame the lawyer
The only way to have challenged the allegations at trial would have been to bring them up, prejudicing the jury. To challenge the use in sentencing of evidence excluded from trial, the defense has to present testimony harmful to their client about the existence of the not-present testimony/evidence, then rebut it. This throws the whole concept of defending against specific charges on its head.
This problem first popped up decades ago in a drug case where the accused pleaded guilty to possession based on a small amount carried on his person and was sentenced to ridiculous term based on the much larger amount in the back of the truck he had been a passenger in that was never presented as evidence against him at trial.
[ link to this | view in thread ]