100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: So You Complain About Privacy Rights | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Some people have complained about wire taps without a search warrant thinking their right to privacy has been infringed upon. Here's the other side of the coin and see if you wouldn't consider the rules should be loosened a bit in the interest of public safety...
Kid porn cops need warrant
Newmarket judge tosses out chat room evidence against man By SAM PAZZANO, COURTS BUREAU The Toronto Sun Police must get a warrant to secretly record conversations on private Internet chat rooms, even if they are chatting with suspected kiddie-porn peddlers, a Newmarket judge has ruled. In what may be a precedent-setting judgment -- and one that could hamper police in the fight against child pornography -- Justice William Gorewich threw out evidence against a Markham man because it was illegally obtained. With the evidence ruled out, the Newmarket Crown withdrew charges in January. The decision is being appealed. The judge stated the accused's Charter rights were violated by Toronto Police Det. Paul Krawcyzk, who recorded the conversation without a warrant. His boss, Det. Sgt. Kim Scanlan of the Child Exploitation Section of Sex Crimes Unit in Toronto, said the "disappointing" decision will have a "direct impact on our ability to keep kids safe. 'DEAD END' "We've gone to Internet service providers with the IP address and the providers give us an address and name, similar to a MTO search for a driver's licence or a 411 phone inquiry," Scanlan said. "It's important we have access to that information. Otherwise it's a dead end for investigators." Defence lawyer Richard Posner, who successfully argued his client's rights were violated, said the law is "Big Brother for the state at its whim and discretion to seize private business information and it's completely unnecessary." On June 24, 2006, Krawczyk was working undercover and posing as a trader on an Internet Rely Chat, where he knew the exchange of child porn images and movies occurred. He found a man known as "Step Tosh" and engaged him in a private conversation which was recorded. Based on this information, York Regional Police executed a search of the man's home on Stonebridge Dr. and found 14 graphic images of child pornography. "The fact this officer had conducted such investigations in the same manner hundreds or thousands of times before doesn't justify his actions," Gorewich wrote. "I find the evidence that the officer stated the need for the information to be acquired quickly to save children from the abuse of child pornography is somewhat far-fetched, given the widespread nature of this illegal activity. CHAT ROOM "There was nothing to prevent this officer from obtaining a warrant (for) the private chat room ... " The judge ruled that people on private chat rooms have the same expectation of privacy as people in private phone calls and police routinely get warrants. "It's a straightforward and simple procedure to get a warrant and the officers know it's like fishing in a barrel, going after people transacting child porn," Posner said yesterday. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dude..
rules are rules and it's not at all hard to get a warrant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dude.. rules are rules and it's not at all hard to get a warrant I agree. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dude.. rules are rules and it's not at all hard to get a warrant dude...I'm sure the pedophiles appreciate your support..you don't seem to grasp the meaning of this... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dude...I'm sure the pedophiles appreciate your support..you don't seem to grasp the meaning of this... i grasp it just fine. like any other thing the police need to present evidence to a judge and get a warrant. all over the nation they have 24 hour judges |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why when the cops **** up and dont follow protocol which leads to a dismissal on a technicality do they blame everyone,the law etc and make dire stements.If you have probable cause,get a warrent for the wiretapping .The cops ****ed up this case big time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dude...I'm sure the pedophiles appreciate your support..you don't seem to grasp the meaning of this... i grasp it just fine. like any other thing the police need to present evidence to a judge and get a warrant. all over the nation they have 24 hour judges I also understand what this means, and, again, I agree with toastedoranges. It's not like the judge is making it impossible for them to catch these pigs, he just wants them to follow the rules, which seem pretty straightforward and easy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why would there be any expectation of privacy when they pedophile willing talk to someone online in a forum and it's done all the time but this is a left wing liberal judge has opened up a can of worms with his idiotic ruling...
this the same a hooker talking to an undercover cop...does she have an expectation of privacy....or the drug dealer selling to an undercover cop...what expectation of privacy does the drug dealer have....none |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i'll say it again, it is not at all hard to get a warrant. the judge was only upholding the law and precidents. for that, you start with your character assasination bit. is everyone who doesn't agree with you liberal scum?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
also understand what this means, and, again, I agree with toastedoranges. It's not like the judge is making it impossible for them to catch these pigs, he just wants them to follow the rules, which seem pretty straightforward and easy. and what grounds do they have to get a warrant...none until they speak with a pedophile....and then the catch 22 sets in....what evidence did they have before the pedophile gave them the evidence...so even with the search warrant the evidence may not be accepted since there's an argument that the warrant was not obtained properly.... you say it's straightforward and easy then please explain it to me...and then you can explain why this anyone online who willingly chats with a stranger has any expectation that his/her conversations are private... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
IndianaJoans
on
Fri 03/07/08 01:21 PM
|
|
Some people have complained about wire taps without a search warrant thinking their right to privacy has been infringed upon. Here's the other side of the coin and see if you wouldn't consider the rules should be loosened a bit in the interest of public safety... Kid porn cops need warrant Newmarket judge tosses out chat room evidence against man By SAM PAZZANO, COURTS BUREAU The Toronto Sun The world is a screwed up place. With the internet it seems that national borders are transparent so I wonder what will become of all of this when the issue involves crossed borders? Something to think about. There are a lot of sick people out there. Please let us all know what happens with this. Police must get a warrant to secretly record conversations on private Internet chat rooms, even if they are chatting with suspected kiddie-porn peddlers, a Newmarket judge has ruled. In what may be a precedent-setting judgment -- and one that could hamper police in the fight against child pornography -- Justice William Gorewich threw out evidence against a Markham man because it was illegally obtained. With the evidence ruled out, the Newmarket Crown withdrew charges in January. The decision is being appealed. The judge stated the accused's Charter rights were violated by Toronto Police Det. Paul Krawcyzk, who recorded the conversation without a warrant. His boss, Det. Sgt. Kim Scanlan of the Child Exploitation Section of Sex Crimes Unit in Toronto, said the "disappointing" decision will have a "direct impact on our ability to keep kids safe. 'DEAD END' "We've gone to Internet service providers with the IP address and the providers give us an address and name, similar to a MTO search for a driver's licence or a 411 phone inquiry," Scanlan said. "It's important we have access to that information. Otherwise it's a dead end for investigators." Defence lawyer Richard Posner, who successfully argued his client's rights were violated, said the law is "Big Brother for the state at its whim and discretion to seize private business information and it's completely unnecessary." On June 24, 2006, Krawczyk was working undercover and posing as a trader on an Internet Rely Chat, where he knew the exchange of child porn images and movies occurred. He found a man known as "Step Tosh" and engaged him in a private conversation which was recorded. Based on this information, York Regional Police executed a search of the man's home on Stonebridge Dr. and found 14 graphic images of child pornography. "The fact this officer had conducted such investigations in the same manner hundreds or thousands of times before doesn't justify his actions," Gorewich wrote. "I find the evidence that the officer stated the need for the information to be acquired quickly to save children from the abuse of child pornography is somewhat far-fetched, given the widespread nature of this illegal activity. CHAT ROOM "There was nothing to prevent this officer from obtaining a warrant (for) the private chat room ... " The judge ruled that people on private chat rooms have the same expectation of privacy as people in private phone calls and police routinely get warrants. "It's a straightforward and simple procedure to get a warrant and the officers know it's like fishing in a barrel, going after people transacting child porn," Posner said yesterday. I worry about the transparent borders of the internet and the issues that will arise from these sicko perverts. This is scary stuff. Maybe the laws concerning the internet will be a bit different than the national laws? Something to think about I guess. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i'll say it again, it is not at all hard to get a warrant. the judge was only upholding the law and precidents. for that, you start with your character assasination bit. is everyone who doesn't agree with you liberal scum? and then maybe you too can tell me what grounds the cop would have to obtain a warrant...if it's so easy... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mmmkay, i think there should be no law sanctioning the wiretaps, OR making them completely illegal. I never believed in tying the hands of anyone working to prevent crimes that are dangerous to citizens. However, if you sanction such an action then you and i both know it will get abused. If no law is passed they will be scared to abuse this because we still have the ability to push the law through if situations get under control. However if they feel that they honestly need to jump the gun they can to some extent. That way everyone is happy. There is a time and place for everything. That is my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
northrn_yanke
on
Fri 03/07/08 01:39 PM
|
|
Nutz..in this case there was no reason for any persons other than pedophiles to be in the charroom this guy was nailed in...these people know it's an illegal activity and should not have any expectation of privacy...I agree with you there has to be rules or there will be abuse but they'll never entrap someone on the internet for being a pedophile since there is no use looking for them outside of the forums set up by pedophiles for pedophiles...the same system is used by police worldwide and that is how there has been some cases that crossed borders and both sides were working together...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if they have the ip and the name
and go into said room and discuss whatever with whomever is in said room no warrant is needed in the united states as the officer is party of the discussion i'm sorry but i do not want to give up any liberties for a false sense of security and the case you site is not even on united states soil |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course posting an article that points out how law enforcement hands are tied with it comes to pedophiles and then using that as a justification for violating the privacy of individuals is manipulative and cheap reporting. It gives the one who posted this thread the arrogant air of being able to point his finger and claim that all those who are against wire-tapping must be in favor of pedophiles.
Low-brow, FOX news, tactics..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course posting an article that points out how law enforcement hands are tied with it comes to pedophiles and then using that as a justification for violating the privacy of individuals is manipulative and cheap reporting. It gives the one who posted this thread the arrogant air of being able to point his finger and claim that all those who are against wire-tapping must be in favor of pedophiles. Low-brow, FOX news, tactics..... Git-R-done (Larry the cable guy)  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if they have the ip and the name and go into said room and discuss whatever with whomever is in said room no warrant is needed in the united states as the officer is party of the discussion i'm sorry but i do not want to give up any liberties for a false sense of security and the case you site is not even on united states soil the case isn't on your soil but the Canadian and US judicial systems are both adversarial...there are cases from both sides of the border that are used as case law in the other country, rarely but it can still happen. This case is under appeal so with 3 judges sitting at the appeal this ruling should be stuck and become a moot issue... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone else think that there will eventually be a different set of laws pertaining to the internet? Perhaps an INTERPOL thing? Just curious. I think this thread can explore an issue that will surely come up but is not in the news that much yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course posting an article that points out how law enforcement hands are tied with it comes to pedophiles and then using that as a justification for violating the privacy of individuals is manipulative and cheap reporting. It gives the one who posted this thread the arrogant air of being able to point his finger and claim that all those who are against wire-tapping must be in favor of pedophiles. Low-brow, FOX news, tactics..... as usual you take time out of your busy schedule to share with us a tidbit of your wealth of intelligence...
|
|
|
|
|
