I look forward to the end of the “but but but LOOK AT ALL THAT PORN!” justification for glazing over blatant violations rule requiring probable cause.

The counter arguments are: a) the law is the law; b) the SC struck-down “virtual” child porn prohibitions; c) Clayton is essentially convicted of a conspiracy crime, see New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982), where he is one of several million co-conspirators in the child-porn industry. So while his moral guilt is vast, his contribution to subsidizing the industry and the crime is relatively minor. (In other words, unlike the main offender in a common-law crime, the kind in view with the Constable-has-blundered quote, no victim can point to Clayton and say “he did this to me and he got away with it.”)

…knowing that CP is a “taboo” subject, I will commence my escape at this point.

I don’t think it was clear that the porn was present on the website, I dont think it was clear that the appellant actually asked for any porn, you are just plain wrong on how IP addresses work, and PC analysis is a little more complex then you make it out to be.

Having said that, didn’t see any reason why your post should have been pulled. I don’t agree with your legal analysis but it wasn’t improper.

Although I’d say to Publius and yourself that perhaps you might be willing to give the admins a bit of a break on this until it’s confirmed your post wasn’t lost or eaten as part of a technical glitch or accident.

Would a reasonable person, having information that: (1) LTC Clayton was a member of a group of people whose only purpose of getting together was to share child porn images and share ideas of ways to exploit children; (2) an image of child porn was actually posted for the members to look at, download, etc.; (3) members of this group admitted to this; (4) LTC Clayton was actively asking that this information be e-mailed to him, 25 messages at a time; (5) the e-mail account at issue was his–he even used his own name as part of his e-mail address; (6) the IP address for the computer that this information was being sent to was in Kuwait at Camp Arifjan; (7) LTC Clayton was in Kuwait at Camp Arifjan at the time; (8) LTC Clayton had a laptop computer, which is easily portable and would normally be kept at either work or home (there are only so many places you can go when you’re deployed); and (9) the IP address could pinpoint the location of the computer (i.e. his “dorm”), believe that images of child porn are PROBABLY on a computer in his “dorm” room? I think the answer is a resounding yes.

In a PC determination, there doesn’t have to evidence that he actually received it. He WAS asking for the comments being posted, and there WAS evidence that child porn was on the group’s website. Google shut it down. A person who joins a chat group created for the purposes of sharing child porn and sharing ideas of how to sexually exploit children probably keeps images of child porn. The logical place to keep those images is in private quarters, where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This was not a “general” authorization–it was an authorization to search for a computer and computer “media” in a specific location.

As for my previous post, I was very critical of the dissent. I think the dissenting opinion’s analysis of the facts and law is wrong. People are free to disagree with me, and obviously some people do. However, my post was not a personal attack, and I don’t think it was abusive, so I don’t know why it was removed. I’ve seen vitriolic posts lodging personal attacks on the judges and other posters, or go completey off topic, remain. Most of the Clayton posts (the last one I see is 11:34 am) seem to suggest that the only reason the majority decided the way it did is because of a knee-jerk reaction to the nature of the crime–child porn. Should those posts be removed too, since they “unfairly” criticize the majority?

As for IP addresses in general, yes they are random, but that doesn’t prevent computer usage from being traced. IP addresses change, if you move your computer to another location. I’ve used the “what’s my IP address” to trace my computer usage, and my IP address changes based on my change in location. My neighbor’s IP address is different than mine. LTC Clayton’s IP address for using his computer at work would have been different than his IP address for using that same computer at his quarters. An IP address can be compared to the known physical location of the suspect–if you have a match, then you’ve got PC as far as I’m concerned.

The analogy being made to “High Times” is not quite accurate. I would agree that simply subscribing to “High Times” is not enough, on its own, to support PC. But if someone asks other subscribers to mail them instructions and tips on how to grow pot, or asks for names of people who use it or distribute it, then that person is probably trying to grow pot, and I can look up that person’s address, and I think that’s enough PC to get a search and seizure authorization to look in any place where pot can be found within that address’ boundaries. If I find some other contraband in places where pot can be found, it’s plain view, and the search is still legal, even if I never find pot.

QUOTE: Often, people think if they lookup an IP address, that they are going to find the physical postal address of the user assigned the IP in question. This is simply not true. At this time, we are not aware of any IP address database that will give you the exact physical postal address of the IP address you lookup.UNQUOTE
(http://www.whatismyip.com/tools/ip-address-lookup.asp)

Your IP address can be altered, there are both free and for a fee ways to do that.
http://www.whatismyip.com/faq/how-to-change-your-ip-address.asp

Generally the IP addess, and a WhoIs lookup (http://www.whatismyip.com/tools/ip-whois-lookup.asp can tell you a lot about the computer and the owner of the internet service, including it’s general location. Then you can go to the company and get more information. If the computer is on a network, then the network administrator can tell you using a combination of the MAC address (which is different to the IP address [http://www.whatismyip.com/faq/what-is-a-mac-address.asp]) of the NIC and unit records showing the workspace where the computer is assigned.

The dissent is correct. As we saw with drug urinalysis cases, decisions tend to be results oriented. Exceptions tend to swallow the rule.
Clayton now stands for the proposition that if someone is thought to have looked at or possessed CP at some time, then a general search authorization can be approved to look for any potential piece of equipment or search for CP.
I rather think the dissenting judges got it right under the facts of this case. In particular they make the correct analogy to how drug search cases were dealt with and a “split” apparently with federal courts.
IMHO.

What is concerning is that seemingly when child pornography is involved there are less stringent applications of the rules for probable cause then when any other type of contraband is involved.

Someone subscribing to High Times, but with no evidence of actually requesting pot wouldn’t be enough to justify a PC search of their home, but someone accessing a child porn site, with no evidence of requesting child porn is apparently enough.

Since laptops are portable, the logical extension of your argument is that accessing a pro-child porn website should be enough to justify a search ANYWHERE. Car, home, work, or anywhere that person has been. That seems to make the requirement of probable cause that evidence exists at a particular location somewhat illusory.

I know, child porn = bad, and certainly results often enter into these decisions (we care less about pot than child porn, so one gets more protection than the other) but it still makes PC a farce to see how often it seems to be lowered when dealing with PC.

How many CP cases have been overturned for lack of PC? I suspect by percentage it is a lot closer to zero than for drugs.

Seems like the smartest move.

The statutes and regulations regarding discharge from the armed forces are properly read to impose a duty on the gov’t to promptly discharge people when their terms of service end. The requirements for final accounting of pay and the “clearing process” is to ensure the gov’t does not tread all over a discharged servicemembers’ rights.

The fact that this important requirements and duties are now stood on their head to become jurisdictional leashes around the necks of former servicemembers is completely absurd.

The gov’t should be held to the highest standards of conduct, and ought to bear the consequences of its own failure to adhere to those standards. Instead, the courts are bending over backwards to relieve the gov’t of the consequences of its own incompetence. The natural result of rewarding incompetent behavior is entirely predictable–more incompetent behavior.

Key issue: “In the present case, we address the issue of whether an administrative discharge of an officer after convening authority action on sentence is void or voidable.”

Conclusion: “Headquarters, HRC, St. Louis lacked authority to administratively issue appellant an honorable discharge. Thus, appellant’s administrative discharge was
voidable, and in this case properly voided. Because the discharge was properly voided, it does not remit or otherwise impact appellant’s approved sentence to a
dismissal.”

Except that those are all diversionary courts based on offenses whereas these courts are unconstitutionally based on status. “No state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Qu. could states establish separate criminal courts to consider the experience of being female or black? What about for former police officers (who often have stress / trigger issues)?