Secret Subjects/Secret Subjects.iso/undergrd/vol_1/cud104a.txt

Text File | 1994-11-01 | 18KB | 457 lines

  ****************************************************************************
                  >C O M P U T E R   U N D E R G R O U N D<
                                >D I G E S T<
               ***  Volume 1, Issue #1.04 (April 11, 1990)   **
                              -- Part 1 of 4 --
                 ** ALCOR'S SUIT AGAINST E-MAIL CONFISCATION **
  ****************************************************************************

MODERATORS:   Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer
REPLY TO:     [e-mail]

COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the
            views of the moderators. Contributors assume all responsibility
            for assuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright
            protections.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


In This Issue:

Issue #1.04 is long--over 2,100 lines--so we have broken it down
into four smaller files.
Keith Henson sent these public documents to us describing how one
organization filed suit against agents for allegedly confiscating
electronic mail illegally. The case raises a number of important issues to
computerists, including the status of E-mail as private communication, the
scope of investigatory authority of law enforcement agents in confiscating
computer "symbols," and other facets of investigation of the use of
computers when an alleged crime has occured.

We encourage article-type responses to the any of the many issues raised
here.

**********************************
PART 1 of 4
**********************************

From _The Press-Enterprise_ Saturday, Feb 24, 1990

(Posted by Alcor member Keith Henson without permission)

ALCOR FILES SUIT OVER ELECTRONIC MAIL SEIZURE

By David Bloom, The Press-Enterprise

   Another legal battle has erupted between Alcor Life Extension Foundation
and the law, this time with a federal lawsuit filed by Alcor over the
seizure more than two years ago of computerized "electronic mail" during a
search of the group%s Riverside headquarters.

   Alcor members pay up to $100,000 for the privilege of have their bodies
put in cryonic suspension, frozen at temperatures hundreds of degrees below
zero, after their death.  The members hope developing medical technology
will one day enable the to be revived and cured.

  The group ran afoul of local law enforcement officials, however, after
the  cryonic suspension of the head of Dora Kent in December 1987.

   The Riverside County coroner's Office accused Alcor members of hastening
along Kent's death with a lethal dose of barbiturates in preparation for
freezing.  The group has denied the accusation, saying the provided only
"care and comfort" to the 83 year-old Kent in her last two days.

   Law enforcement officers raided the Alcor headquarters on Riverside's
southwest edge in January 1988, searching for computer equipment, software
and related material, and for Kent's body parts, and any illegal drugs.

   They found the equipment, but not Kent, whose head had been secreted
away, or any illegal drugs.

   The most recent lawsuit was filed last month in U.S. District court in
Los Angeles.  It accuses a dozen Riverside City and County law enforcement
officials of violating the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986.

   The suit says police illegally seized the electronic mail of 14 Alcor
members when it seized the computer equipment.  A copy of the search
warrant included as an exhibit in the suit does not mention electronic
mail.

   The suit asked for at least $10,000 for each of the alcor member who
filed the suit.  Most to the same members filed a claim against the city 11
months ago, but the city allowed the claim to expire without response after
45 days, said  attorney John Porter, who is representing the city and two
policemen named in  the suit.

   "This lawsuit was filed in federal court," Porter said.  "It should have
been filed the Twilight Zone."

    The attorney for Alcor could not be reach for comment late yesterday.

Date: Tue, 27-Mar-90 20:17:46 PST

From _The Press-Enterprise_ Saturday, Feb 24, 1990

(Posted by Alcor member Keith Henson without permission)

ALCOR FILES SUIT OVER ELECTRONIC MAIL SEIZURE

By David Bloom, The Press-Enterprise

   Another legal battle has erupted between Alcor Life Extension Foundation
and the law, this time with a federal lawsuit filed by Alcor over the
seizure more than two years ago of computerized "electronic mail" during a
search of the group%s Riverside headquarters.

   Alcor members pay up to $100,000 for the privilege of have their bodies
put in cryonic suspension, frozen at temperatures hundreds of degrees below
zero, after their death.  The members hope developing medical technology
will one day enable the to be revived and cured.

  The group ran afoul of local law enforcement officials, however, after
the  cryonic suspension of the head of Dora Kent in December 1987.

   The Riverside County coroner's Office accused Alcor members of hastening
along Kent's death with a lethal dose of barbiturates in preparation for
freezing.  The group has denied the accusation, saying the provided only
"care and comfort" to the 83 year-old Kent in her last two days.

   Law enforcement officers raided the Alcor headquarters on Riverside's
southwest edge in January 1988, searching for computer equipment, software
and related material, and for Kent's body parts, and any illegal drugs.

   They found the equipment, but not Kent, whose head had been secreted
away, or any illegal drugs.

   The most recent lawsuit was filed last month in U.S. District court in
Los Angeles.  It accuses a dozen Riverside City and County law enforcement
officials of violating the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986.

   The suit says police illegally seized the electronic mail of 14 Alcor
members when it seized the computer equipment.  A copy of the search
warrant included as an exhibit in the suit does not mention electronic
mail.

   The suit asked for at least $10,000 for each of the alcor member who
filed the suit.  Most to the same members filed a claim against the city 11
months ago, but the city allowed the claim to expire without response after
45 days, said  attorney John Porter, who is representing the city and two
policemen named in  the suit.

   "This lawsuit was filed in federal court," Porter said.  "It should have
been filed the Twilight Zone."

    The attorney for Alcor could not be reach for comment late yesterday.

Subject: Re: ECPA suit-court filing
Date: Tue, 27-Mar-90 20:18:18 PST


CHRISTOPHER ASHWORTH, A Member of
GARFIELD, TEPPER, ASHWORTH & EPSTEIN
1925 Century Part East, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, California  90067
Telephone: [phone]

Attorneys For Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case NO. SA CV90-021 JSL (RwRx)

COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY RELIEF
AND DAMAGES
(Electronic
Communications Privacy
Act of 1986;
18 U.S.C. Section 2701,
et seq.)


H. KEITH HENSON, HUGH L. HIXON,
JR., THOMAS K. DONALDSON, NAOMI
REYNOLDS, ROGER GREGORY, MICHAEL G.
FEDEROWITCZ, STEVEN B. HARRIS,
BRIAN WOWK, ERIC GEISLINGER,
CATH WOOF, BILLY H. SEIDEL,
ALLEN J. LOPP, LEE CORBIN
RALPH MERKEL, AND KEITH LOFTSTROM

                    Plaintiffs,

     v.

RAYMOND CARRILLO, SCOTT HILL,
DAN CUPIDO, ALAN KUNZMAN, ROWE
WORTHINGTON, RICHARD BOGAN,
REAGAN SCHMALZ, GROVER TRASK, II,
ROBERT SPITZER, LINFORD L.
RICHARDSON, GUY PORTILLO,
individuals, and the COUNTY OF
RIVERSIDE, a subdivision of the
State of CAlifornia, And the CITY
OF RIVERSIDE, a municipal entity,
and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive,
               Defendants.

          Plaintiffs complain of defendants as follows:
                       JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATION

          1.   This case arises under an Act of Congress, namely
the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986; U.S.C. Section
2701, et Seq., and in particular, the civil enforcement
Provisions thereof, 18 U.S.C. Section 2707.   Venue is proper in this
Court in that all of the defendants reside in this district.

                   COMMON ALLEGATIONS

           2.    Plaintiffs are all individuals residing in
various point and places in the United States.  [except Brian
Wowk who resides in Canada.]
          3.   Defendants Carrillo, Hill, Cupido, Kuntzman,
Worthington, Bogan, Schmalz, Trask, Spitzer, Hinman and Mosley
are all employees of defendant County of Riverside, and at all
times material, were acting within the course and scope of their
employment.  Defendants Richardson and Portillo are all
employees of defendant City of Riverside and at all times
material, were acting within the course and scope of their
employment.  Defendant County of Riverside ["county'] is a
political subdivision of the State of California.  Defendant
City of Riverside ["city'] is a municipal entity located within
California.
          Defendants Carrillo, Hill, Cupido, Kuntzman,
Worthington, Bogan, and Schmalz are employed by defendant County
in the Office of the Riverside County Coroner.  Defendants
Trask, Spitzer, Hinman and Mosley are employed by the said
county in the office of the District Attorney,  Defendants
Richardson and Portillo are employed by defendant City in the
Riverside Police Department.

-------------------

          4.   All of the events complained of herein occurred
within two years of the date of filing of the complaint.
               At all times material, Alcor Life Extension
Foundation, a non-Profit corporation with its principal place of
business in Riverside County, maintained facilities at its place
of business whose purpose was to (in part) facilitate the
sending and receipt of electronic mail ["E-mail"] via computer-
driven modems and which electronic mail facility was utilized by
the plaintiffs, and each of them.  The Alcor Facility is remote in
geographical location from all plaintiffs.
          5.   At all times material, each plaintiff had one or
more E-mail messages abiding on electron or magnetic medial at
the Alcor facility.  Prior to [actually on] January 12, 1988, defendants
procured from the Riverside Superior Court a search warrant
which authorized, in general, a search of the facilities of
Alcor.  A true and correct copy of that search warrant is
attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A".  The search warrant does
not purport to reach, nor was it intended to reach, any of the
E-mail of plaintiffs.
          6.   On January 12, 1988, defendant entered upon the
Alcor premisses and removed many things therefrom including the
electronic media containing plaintiffs' E-mail.
          7.   Contemporaneously with the seizure of the
electronic media containing plaintiffs' E-mail, defendants were
explicitly informed that they were seizing plaintiffs' E-mail
which was not described either generally or specifically in the
warrant hereinabove referred to.

--------------

          8.   No notice was given to any plaintiff by any
defendant of the impending seizure of their E-mail.
          9.   In the process of procuring the warrant, neither
the defendants nor anyone else made any showing that there
was reason to believe that the contents of any of plaintiffs' E-
mail was relevant to any law enforcement inquiry.
          10.   Subsequent to the execution of the warrant on
January 12, 1988, no notice was given to any plaintiff by any
government entity, including the defendants, nor any
defendant herein, at any time, regarding the defendants
acquisition and retention of plaintiffs' E-mail.
          11.   The court issuing the warrant in respect of the
Alcor facility did not, prior to the issuance of the warrant nor
at any other time, determine that notice to plaintiffs
compromised any legitimate investigation within the meaning of 18
U.S.C.  section 2705(a)(2).
          12.   Not withstanding that defendant and each of them
were informed that they had taken, along with materials
describe in the warrant, E-mall belonging to plaintiffs, said
defendants knowingly and willfully (a) continued to access the
electronic and magnetic media containing plaintiffs' E-mail and
(b) continued to deny access to plaintiffs to such E-mail for
many months although a demand was made for the return of the
said E-mail.  Defendants' wrongful access to and retention of
plaintiffs' E-mail was intentional within the meaning of 18
U.S.C. section 2707.

--------------

          13.   Proximately caused by the unprivileged actions of
the defendants hereinbefore described, each plaintiff has
suffered damage in an amount to be proved at trial, but in no
event less than $10,000 each.
          WHEREFORE plaintiffs pray:
        1.   For damages according to proof;
        2.   For cost of suit;
        3.   For Attorneys' fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 2707(b)(3);  and
        4.   For such other and further relief as is required
in the circumstances.

Date:  January 11, 1990


GARFIELD, TEPPER, ASHWORTH, AND EPSTEIN
A Professional Corporation

(signed)
CHRISTOPHER ASHWORTH
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

--------------

Exhibit "A"

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SEARCH WARRANT

To any Sheriff, Police Officer, Marshal or Peace Officer
in the County of Riverside.

Proof, by sworn statement, having been made this day
to me by Alan Kunzman and it appearing that there is
probable cause to believe that at the place and on the
persons and in the vehicle(s) set forth herein there
is now being concealed property which is:

____  stolen or embezzled property
__x__ property and things used to commit a felony
__x__ property possessed (or being concealed by another)
           with intent to commit a public offense
__x__ property tending to show a felony was committed;
          YOU ARE THEREFORE COMMANDED TO SEARCH :  the
          premises located at

   [description of Alcor address at 12327 Doherty St.]

including all rooms attics, basements, storage areas, and
other parts therein, garages, grounds and outbuilding and
appurtenances to said premises; vehicles(s) described as
follows:
(not applicable)
and the persons of (not applicable)
for the following property:

1.  All electronic storage devices, capable of storing,
electronic data regarding the above records,
including magnetic tapes, disc, (floppy or hard),
and the complete hardware necessary to retrieve
electronic data including CPU (Central Processing
Unit), CRT (viewing screen, disc or tape drives(s),
printer, software and service manual for operation
of the said computer, together with all handwritten
notes or printed material describing the
operation of the computers  (see exhibit A - search
warrant no.,  1 property to be seized #1)

2.  Human body parts identifiable or belonging to
the deceased, Dora Kent.

3.  Narcotics, controlled substances and other
drugs subject to regulation by the Drug
Enforcement Administration.


article of personal property tending to establish the identity
of person in control of premise, vehicle, storage areas,
and containers being searched, including utility company
receipts, rent receipts, address envelopes and keys and to
SEIZE it if found and bring it forthwith before me or
this court at the courthouse of this court.
    Good cause being shown this warrant my be served at any
time of the day or night as approve by my initials_________

Time of issuance _______    Time of execution __1600__
Given under my hand and dated this 12th day of January 1988
Thomas E. Hollenhorst  Judge of the Superior Court

-------------


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


H. KEITH HENSON, see attachment "A"
                          PLAINTIFF(S)

         vs.

RAYMOND CARRILLO,  see attachment "A"
                      DEFENDANTS(S)

CASE NUMBER

SA CV- 90-021  JSL Rw Rx

SUMMONS

-----------------------------------------------

TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S), your are hereby summoned and required to
file with this court and serv upon
         Christopher Ashworth, Esq.
         GARFIELD, TEPPER, ASHWORTH & EPSTEIN
         A Professional Corporation

Plaintiff's attorney, whose address is:

        1925 Century Park East, Suite 1250
        Los Angeles, California   90067
        (213)  277-1981

an answer to the complaint which is herewith serve upon you
within __20__ days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive
of the day of service.  If you fail to do so, judgment by default
will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.

Date   Jan. 11, 1990

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

By  MARIA CORTEZ
     Deputy Clerk
 (SEAL OF THE COURT)
%
Subject: Re: ECPA FBI suit--update--hot stuff
Date: Tue, 27-Mar-90 20:18:56 PST



The below is a typed-in copy of the response of William F. Murphy,
Assistant United States Attorney to my suit filed last December against
the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's office for their failure to enforce (or even
investigate) what I considered to be a violation of the ECPA.  The full text
of the suit was posted in misc.legal in January and is still available by
email on request from [e-mail]  Comments, advice,
applicable cases, etc. are most welcome.  A status conference is
scheduled for March 24.  The motion to dismiss is set for April 14.  It
states:  "Pursuant to Rules 7(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), F.R. Civ.P. defendants
hereby move to dismiss this lawsuit for failure to state a claim for which
relief can be granted.  In support of this motions, defendants respectfully
refer that attention to the Court and parties to the memorandum of Points
and Authorities submitted herewith.

                      <<< END OF PART 1 of #1.04 >>>