Friday, March 19, 2010

Reason #31 I Am Not a Lawyer

So a computer tech went to this guy's house to fix his internet connection and noticed that the guy had sketchy icons on his computer which included the words "Lolita Porn" and "Lolita XXX". He also noticed that webcam was set up and pointed towards a little girl who was playing in the room.

Dude came back the next day to finish fixing the computer and noticed that the icons were gone and the webcam was moved.

Tech man clearly knew something was up, so reported it to the authorities.

Well the man with the questionable computer content and behaviour has been let off by the Supreme Court of Canada because apparently the police didn't have enough evidence to issue a search warrant. Furthermore, apparently, having clearly sketchy icons on your computer and a camera pointed towards your young child isn't enough evidence because "The court found that the information used to obtain the warrant failed to mention the child was fully clothed and there were no signs of abuse when the technician visited the home." (

Let's break this down for a second.

Clearly this guy isn't too smart for having left the icons on his computer but he's obviously not STUPID enough to let his child be filmed in the nude while a technician is there. This should be obvious to anyone and therefore, the fact that the child was clothed at that time shouldn't be enough to dismiss the evidence.

And the signs of abuse thing is also questionable because if the child was fully clothed and playing with toys and you're just a computer technician and not a trained criminologist, then you're obviously not going to know all there is to know. The man went on intuition, for Pete's Sake. Intuition that they are hoping to become law in Alberta, where a politician is pushing for legislation forcing anyone who witnesses child pornography, comes across it or suspects that it is being made/used, report it to authorities.

Cases like this aren't exactly encouraging people to report suspicious activity.

However my issue here is how the law misses the obvious in favour of tripping over the small things. The Supreme Court didn't say that the guy wasn't a perv, or wasn't in the wrong, they were saying that no case could go forward because the search warrant was not okay. This is what I don't understand.

Obviously police work should have made sure to cross their Ts and dot their Is to ensure crap like this doesn't happen but it makes me sick to see people not even arguing that they are innocent but simply arguing that "Hey, I know you found sketchy stuff in my house, but you had no right to come into my house, so you can't mention it".

And in this case, we're not talking about 'sketchy stuff' like a home grow-op, we're talking about child pornography.

Jeez Louise!

No comments: