📄 sj-dec~1.txt
字号:
statutory damages involved, but the Court declines to find from apreponderance of the evidence that any of the individual Plaintiffssustained any compensatory damages. - 14 - ii. a. PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT (First Amendment Privacy Protection) 42 U.S.C. 2000aa et seq. The United States Secret Service, by Agent Foley and AssistantUnited States Attorney Cox, sought and obtained an order from aUnited States Magistrate Judge to search for and seize andthereafter read the information stored and contained in "computerhardware (including, but not limited to, central processing unit(s)monitors, memory devices, modem(s), programming equipment,communication equipment, disks, and printers) and computer software(including, but not limited to) memory disks, floppy disks, storagemedia) and written material and documents relating to the use ofthe computer system (including network access files) ,documentation relating to the attacking of computers andadvertising the results of computer attacks (including telephonenumbers and location information), and financial documents andlicensing documentation relative to the compute programs andequipment at the business known as Steve Jackson Games whichconstitute evidence, instrumentalities, and fruits of federalcrimes, including interstate transportation of stolen property (18U.S.C. 2314) and interstate transportation of computer accessinformation (18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(6))." See, Warrant Application andOrder. On March 1, 1990, the Secret Service seized the followingproperty on the premises of Steve Jackson Games, Inc.: Compuaddkeyboard; Packard-Bell monitor; DKT computer; cardboard boxcontaining disks, miscellaneous papers and circuit boards; SplatMaster gun with "Mentor" on barrel; Hewlett-Packard laser jetprinter; BTC keyboard with cover; IBM personal computer 5150(disassembled); Seagate Tech hard disk; 2400 modem 1649-1795 withDower supply and disk; IBM keyboard; Amdek mode[l] 31OA; bulletinboard back-up files (approximately 150); Empac InternationalCorporation XT computer; "WWIV" users manual; red box of floppydisks; miscellaneous papers and notes from desk; floppy diskentitled "Phoenix setup." See, Warrant Return. The evidence establishes the actual information seized,including both the primary source and back-up materials of thedraft of Gurps Cyberpunk, a book intended for immediate publication(within days to weeks) , drafts of magazine and magazine articlesto be published, business records of Steve Jackson Games,Incorporated (including contracts and drafts of articles by writersof Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated), the Illuminati bulletinboard and its contents (including public announcements, publishednewsletter articles submitted to the public for review, publiccomment on the articles submitted and electronic mail containingboth private and public communications) . Notwithstanding over 300floppy disks being seized, the evidence introduced during trial wasnot clear as to what additional information was seized during thesearch warrant execution. However, the evidence is clear that onMarch 1, 1990, "work product materials, " as defined in 42 U.S.C.2000aa-7 (b), was - 16 -obtained as well as materials constituting "documentary materials"as defined in the same provision.' The Privacy Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000aa, dictates:"Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for agovernment officer or employee, in connection with theinvestigation . . . of a criminal offense to search for or seizeany work product materials possessed by a person reasonablybelieved to have a purpose to disseminate to the public anewspaper, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication. . ." See, 42 U.S.C. [sec] 2000aa(a). Assuming Agent Foley was knowledgeable of the PrivacyProtection Act (which he was not), neither he nor Assistant UnitedStates Attorney Cox had any information which would lead them tobelieve that Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated published books andmaterials and had a purpose to disseminate to the public itspublications. Their testimony is simply they thought it a producerof games. As heretofore stated, the Court feels Agent Foley failedto make a reasonable investigation of Steve Jackson Games,Incorporated when it was apparent his intention was to takesubstantial properties belonging to the corporation, the removal ofwhich could have a substantial effect on the continuation of 7 If the Secret Service, in the performance of executing Courtorder, had only obtained and taken the 911 document or allegeddecryption materials, application of the definitions of"documentary materials" and "work product materials" wouldlogically result in no violation of the statute under thecircumstances of this case. It was the seizing all documents andinformation and, thereafter, the failure to promptly return theinformation seized which leads to violation of the statute. - 17 -business. Agent Foley, it appears, in his zeal to obtain evidencefor the criminal investigation, simply concluded Steve JacksonGames, Incorporated was somehow involved in Blankenship's allegedactivities because of the wording of the Illuminati bulletin boardmenu. In any event, the Court declines to find from a preponderanceof the evidence that on March 1, 1990, Agent Foley or any otheremployee or agent of the United States had reason to believe thatproperty seized would be the work product materials of a personbelieved to have a purpose to disseminate to the public anewspaper, book, broadcast or other similar form of publiccommunication.'88 'The legislative history to the Privacy Protection Act states: ...the Committee recognized a problem for the law en- forcement officer, who seeking to comply with the statute, might be uncertain whether the materials he sought were work product or nonwork product and that they were intended for publication. Therefore, in the interests of allowing for some objective measure for judgment by the office, the Committee has provided that the work product must be possessed by someone "reasonably believed" to have a purpose to communicate to the public.S. Rep. No. 874, 96th Cong., 2nd Sess., 10 (1980), reprinted in1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3950, 3957. As the Court has stated, Agent Foleywith only a few hours of investigation would have "reasonablybelieved" Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated had "a purpose tocommunicate to the public." Therefore, under an objective standard,assuming a reasonable investigation, Agent Foley and the SecretService violated the statute on March 1, 1990. However, Agent Foleywas not aware of the Privacy Protection Act and was therefore not"seeking to comply" with its requirements. Consequently, the Courtfound on March 1, 1990 neither Agent Foley nor any other employeeor agent of the United States "reasonably believed" the materialsseized were work product or Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated hada "purpose to disseminate to the public." - 18 - During the search on March 1, and on March 2, 1990, the SecretService was specifically advised of facts that put its employees onnotice of probable violations of the Privacy Protection Act. It isno excuse that Agents Foley and Golden were not knowledgeable ofthe law. On March 2, 1990, and thereafter, the conduct of theUnited States Secret Service was in violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000aaet seq. It is clear the Secret Service continued the seizure ofproperty of Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated including informationand documents through late June of 1990. Immediate arrangementscould and should have been made on March 2, 1990, whereby copies ofall information seized could have been made. The government couldand should have requested Steve Jackson as chief operating officerof the corporation to cooperate and provide the informationavailable under the law. The Secret Service's refusal to returninformation and property requested by Mr. Jackson and his lawyersin Dallas and Austin constituted a violation of the statute.Regarding any information seized that would constitute 'documentarymaterials" (whereby the defensive theory of 42 U.S.C. 2000aa(b) (3)might apply) there would have been no problem as the property wasin the possession of the United States Secret Service and theirexperts and Steve Jackson were present to ensure no destruction,alteration or concealment of information contained therein. In anyevent, it is the seizure of the "work product materials" that leadsto the liability of the United States Secret Service and the UnitedStates in this case. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000aa-6, the Courtfinds from a preponderance of the evidence that Steve Jackson - 19 -Games, Incorporated is entitled to judgement against the UnitedStates Secret Service and the United States of America for itsexpenses of $8,781.00 and its economic damages of $42,259.00. TheCourt declines to find from a preponderance of the evidence otherdamages of Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated or liability of theUnited States Secret Service or the United States of America to anyother Plaintiff under the provisions of the Privacy Protection Act. b. WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq. The Plaintiff s allege the United States Secret Service " sconduct also violated 18 U.S.C. 2510, et seq., as it constitutedintentional interceptions of "electronic communication. " Theyallege the interception occurred at the time of seizure or,perhaps, at the time of review of the communication subsequent tothe seizure. There is no question the individual Plaintiffs hadprivate communications stored in Illuminati at the time of theseizure and the court has found from a preponderance of theevidence the Secret Service intended not only to seize and readthese communications, but, in fact, did read the communications andthereafter deleted or destroyed some communications eitherintentionally or accidentally. The Defendants contend there is noviolation of this particular statute under the facts of this casebecause there never was any unlawful "interception" within themeaning of the statute. Alternatively, the Defendants contend thatthe "good faith reliance" on the search warrant issued by the - 20 -United States Magistrate Judge is a complete defense under Section2520 . The Government relies on the 1976 Fifth Circuit case of theUnited States v. Turk, 526 F.2d 654 (5th Cir. 1976), cert denied,429 U.S. 823, 97 S.Ct. 74 (1976), and its interpretation of thestatutory definition of "interception." In Turk, police officerslistened to the contents of a cassette tape without first obtaininga warrant. The court concluded this was not an "interception" under18 U.S.C. [sec] 2510 et seq. Whether the seizure and replaying of the cassette tape by the officers was also an "interception" depends on the definition to be given "aural acquisition." Under one conceivable
⌨️ 快捷键说明
复制代码
Ctrl + C
搜索代码
Ctrl + F
全屏模式
F11
切换主题
Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键
?
增大字号
Ctrl + =
减小字号
Ctrl + -