Lower Merion Spycam Case: The Problem of Intent

[woo me with science]

According to this Philadelphia Inquirer article, the federal case against the school could be difficult to win because of the problem of proving intent. They don't specifically mention options for non-federal criminal charges.


http://communication-solutions.tmcnet.com/news/2010/02/21/4633701.htm


Lower Merion webcam issue is new legal territory
The Philadelphia Inquirer
February 21, 2010

(Introductory paragraph explaining the case)

Now federal prosecutors have subpoenaed the district, The Inquirer has learned. The grand-jury subpoena, delivered Friday, sought records related to the cameras and the system that district officials used to activate them, said a person who had been briefed about the matter.
......

"Among the allegations we would look at are whether any wiretap or computer intrusion laws were broken," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We're just getting started. And at the end of the day, we may not find any federal violations." The wiretap law applies to audio, not video or still images. The intrusion law bars unauthorized access to a computer with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or invade privacy.

.......

...Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman said Friday that neither the Robbins family nor their lawyer had contacted her office or local police. Ferman, who said she learned of the matter from news reports, said she had begun a preliminary investigation.

The federal wiretap law applies only to audio, not video images. But the Department of Justice considers a video wiretap such an invasion of privacy that federal prosecutors typically seek a judge's permission before installing hidden video cameras in a home or an office.

.......

Jeffrey Lindy, a defense lawyer whose son is a Lower Merion senior, said he doubts a federal crime occurred. "I think the federal case is going to go away pretty quick; it would be a defense attorney's dream because there is certainly no intent to commit a crime here," Lindy said yesterday. "Now, of course, the parents weren't told. That's not illegal, just stupid."

...........................................................................................



I also thought of this post by Lerkfish, which makes me wonder whether evidence of intent will be uncovered even if it happens to exist:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7775200&mesg_id=7775403

I keep wondering about a Constitutional challenge...

[BR_Parkway]

1. If the allegation is true that they confronted him about behaviour at

home, how much more would have to be proven that they "intended to invade his privacy"?

[woo me with science]

2. That would make sense to me,

but I would hope the school district would be held federally responsible for merely sending the remotely activated cameras into private homes. That in and of itself is a massive invasion of privacy. It sounds to me like federal wiretap laws need to be changed if they apply only to audio. If I am reading the article correctly, it sounds like there is a higher burden of proof for video.