Yahoo chat nude pics

He received a message from an individual logged in Yahoo Messaging Chat as "stevedragonslayer." This individual invited James Vanlandingham to view his web cam. records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation." 18 U. The district court dismissed this as "of no moment" because Yahoo! Both Cheung's testimony and the actual document turned over by Yahoo! Perrine admitted he was "stevedragonslayer" and gives no explanation for who else could have been logged on to Yahoo! Furthermore, despite his wholly speculative arguments to the contrary, Perrine presents no evidence that anyone else "hijacked" his computer and went on line using the name "stevedragonslayer." the identifying information at issue here — defendant's name, address, etc.

stated as follows: Officer Humbert received information from Leetsdale Police Officer Wayne Drish indicating that a resident of his jurisdiction had received what appeared to be child pornography via his computer while in a Yahoo! Officer Humbert interviewed the resident, James Vanlandingham, and learned that he was logged into Yahoo Messaging Chat on September 2, 2005 at approximately PM EDT. Perrine also alleges that the application for the order was deficient because it failed to show that "stevedragonslayer" was on line with Vanlandingham on September 2, 2005, at 2 PM. account and maintains that information for approximately thirty days. 's records also revealed that "stevedragonslayer" with IP address 68.103.177.146 had logged on to Yahoo! We agree with the district court that the absence of a specific record of "stevedragonslayer" with IP address 68.103.177.226 or 68.103.177.146 being logged on at 2 PM on September 2, 2005, does not undermine the adequacy of the affidavit. fails to maintain records for more than thirty days. Since Perrine admitted he was "stevedragonslayer" and both Vanlandingham and Officer Humbert observed the chat session with "stevedragonslayer," there can be little doubt that the individual chatting with Vanlandingham on September 2, 2005, and showing pornographic videos was, in fact, Perrine. Every federal court to address this issue has held that subscriber information provided to an internet provider is not protected by the Fourth Amendment's privacy expectation.

One of the Pennsylvania law enforcement authorities interviewed Vanlandingham and viewed the saved chat room conversation. Stone further testified that Kazaa, is a program which allows individual users like Perrine to identify folders that are available to share with others, search other computers with Kazaa for specific topics, and download files from other computers, while allowing other computers to download files from Perrine's computer.

Based upon Vanlandingham's account of these events, Pennsylvania law enforcement personnel obtained a disclosure order dated October 14, 2005, pursuant to 18 U. Kazaa is a computer program that connects a computer to other computers on which the Kazaa program is also running.

The affidavit attached to the October 14, 2005, application for a disclosure order for Yahoo! Further, the officer stated that he had personally read the chat log between Vanlandingham and "stevedragonslayer." The details provided are specific and certainly would lead to a reasonable suspicion that "stevedragonslayer" was involved in child pornography. tracks dates, times, and IP addresses for login attempts on a Yahoo! subscriber during the period of time relevant to this case. 2001) (holding, in a non-criminal context, that "computer users do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their subscriber information because they have conveyed it to another person the system operator"); United States v.

on the date of the crime, September 2, 2005, at 2 p.m. There is no reason to doubt Vanlandingham's account of what happened; indeed, he immediately contacted the police, which suggests he was simply a concerned citizen. Thus, there would have been only one "stevedragonslayer" as a Yahoo!

Rodriguez further testified that only one IP address is assigned to a user at a time and that it is the customer's address on the internet when he or she is online. "When reviewing a district court's denial of a motion to suppress, we review the district court's factual findings for clear error and consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government." United States v.

She stated that the IP address 68.103.177.146 was used by Perrine. Perrine thereafter filed a motion for a new trial, a motion for a judgment of acquittal, and a motion for arrest of judgment.

However, section 2708 of the ECPA specifically states that "[t]he remedies and sanctions described in this chapter are the only judicial remedies and sanctions for non-constitutional violations of this chapter." 18 U.

chat room and while using the screen name "dana_hotlips05," he began chatting with a person with the screen name "stevedragonslayer." "stevedragonslayer" invited Vanlandingham/"dana_hotlips05" to watch a web cam video depicting two nude six-to-nine-year-old girls. to provide the subscriber information for the screen name "stevedragonslayer." Yahoo! § 2703(d) is part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), which regulates the disclosure of electronic communications and subscriber information. In addition to seizing Perrine's computer, the police also found firearms and drug paraphernalia. § 2252(a)(4)(B); one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U. Among other motions, Perrine filed a motion to suppress and a motion to dismiss based upon outrageous government conduct.

While waiting for the police to arrive, Vanlandingham stayed on the line with "stevedragonslayer" and continued to chat. 's records indicated that "stevedragonslayer" logged on to the Yahoo! They accordingly amended the search warrant to authorize seizure of those items as well. § 2252(a)(2); one count of possessing child pornography, in violation of 18 U. The district court held a motions hearing, at which Perrine testified that he was "stevedragonslayer." Perrine further testified that he had enabled peer-to-peer file sharing on his computer, thereby giving anyone with internet access and, certain software the ability to gain entrance to certain files on his computer.

account and maintains that information for approximately thirty days. records showed that the IP addresses 68.103.177.226 and 68.103.177.146 belonged to "stevedragonslayer." Perla Rodriguez, the Cox Communications Customer Escalations Coordinator, testified that residential account IP addresses can change because they are leased for twenty-four hours at a time. § 5743(d); and (2) the district court erred in failing to dismiss the case against Perrine due to outrageous government conduct. which this court reviews de novo." United States v. Rather, a state judge's "decision to issue a warrant is entitled to great deference," and we "need only ask whether, under the totality of the circumstances presented in the affidavit, the [state] judge had a `substantial basis' for determining that probable cause existed." United States v.

Cox Communications residential account IP addresses release and renew every twenty-four hours; when an IP address releases, if the same IP address is available, it reattaches within a few seconds. Perrine appeals the denial of his motion to suppress. Further, "[d]eterminations relating to the sufficiency of a search warrant and the applicability of the good-faith exception are conclusions of law, .

Leave a Reply