Man suspected of child porn simply didn't secure wireless router

A Buffalo, NY man had a rude awakening one morning when federal officers broke down the door to his house, threw him down the stairs and aimed assault weapons at him while yelling, “Pedophile!”  After the investigation was completed, it turned out that it wasn’t this man but rather someone using his unsecured wireless router. According to MSNBC.com, law enforcement officials spent hours combing through the suspect’s computer and other digital devices before simply taking them to a forensics laboratory for further investigation. After a few days, investigators realized that the suspect was telling the truth and that he was not the one downloading child pornography.

It appears that law enforcement followed the proper procedures while carrying out the raid. They tracked down the IP address of the offender, received customer information from the ISP, and then identified the location of the home. However they did not check for an unsecured wireless router ahead of time, nor did they track down other leads before performing the raid. Further investigation led the authorities to the University of Buffalo where they were able to identify two more instances of illegal child pornography downloads linked to the original.  The University was able to provide the name of the token owner, and police made an arrest.

Cases like this highlight the need for securing wireless signals, and it’s good that the technology has been getting easier to use. However there are still many people who like to leave their signal available for others to use, as well as the many open Wi-Fi hotspots available at restaurants and stores. Should it be considered a crime to leave your wireless router open? Do you leave your signal open for others to use?

Poll

Do you secure your wireless signal?

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Windows 8 History Vault

Next Story

Iran detects second cyber attack

120 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I very much believe agressive action should be taken against criminals. I also feel sorry for this chap and believe he should be offered some form of compensation for the unfortuante events.

painejake said,
I very much believe agressive action should be taken against criminals. I also feel sorry for this chap and believe he should be offered some form of compensation for the unfortuante events.

Yeah right. Be sure and let the LEA guys know just what constitutes "compensation" for destroying the guy's life.

They should all be locked up for 5 years. NO PENSIONS. (whats good for the goose..)

"aimed assault weapons at him while yelling 'Pedophile!' ...
It appears that law enforcement followed the proper procedures while carrying out the raid. "

Nice procedure. Probably similar to the 1692 procedure for arresting witches at Salem.

If you are going to leave your wireless unlocked, then you should at least have some kind of content filter in place that filters web traffic.

Personally, you should at least have a content filter in place, and vlan off a separate wireless secured network, and then just give that password to all guests. This way not just anyone can access your network, and when they do, you have a filter in place.

ceminess said,
If you are going to leave your wireless unlocked, then you should at least have some kind of content filter in place that filters web traffic.

Personally, you should at least have a content filter in place, and vlan off a separate wireless secured network, and then just give that password to all guests. This way not just anyone can access your network, and when they do, you have a filter in place.

That would be blaming the victim. That is about as bad as she was wearing XYZ and just asking to be raped. It doesn't work.

azure.sapphire said,

That would be blaming the victim. That is about as bad as she was wearing XYZ and just asking to be raped. It doesn't work.

I'm not blaming the victim. I'm saying that people need to educate themselves. There should be a small pamphlet of information about wireless security included in every wireless router/access point sold.

I blame the feds for not checking his wifi and it's also the guys fault for not securing his wifi.

Now he knows how my neighbours feel!
i don't download CP or any sh*t like that btw.

Every cop in America wouldn't need to crap themselves going into a house if their gun laws were better policed in the first place, right to bear arms everybody, just in case of a civil war again? joke #1.

Dermot said,
Every cop in America wouldn't need to crap themselves going into a house if their gun laws were better policed in the first place, right to bear arms everybody, just in case of a civil war again? joke #1.

That's why I'm glad we have laws against drugs -- that way we don't have to worry about people using drugs!

Why didnt they track the MAC Address? I doubt the true pedophile was smart enough to ghost the innocent guys MAC.

Benjy91 said,
Why didnt they track the MAC Address? I doubt the true pedophile was smart enough to ghost the innocent guys MAC.

MAC address is not widely published, neither private IP.

How could they NOT have thought of an unsecured wireless connection? That right there is just plain stupid on the cops part.

The guy might be saying he won't press charges now, but he will and should!!

SSG Lee said,
I lol'ed thinking about the police yelling Pedofile! i think this article has troll all over it.

I've been called nasty things by the police when being arrested on false charges, so really this doesn't surprise me. And I'm Canadian.

Beyond all of this there is one other law they broke.

Unauthorized access to a private network.

Yep... Even if the network is open (unsecured) it still qualifies. There have been convictions under this and the person accessing the network I doubt got permission to access it.

shinji257 said,
Beyond all of this there is one other law they broke.

Unauthorized access to a private network.

Yep... Even if the network is open (unsecured) it still qualifies. There have been convictions under this and the person accessing the network I doubt got permission to access it.

the opposite, he is owner of the network.

I only feel a little bad for this guy, but only because he was born with too few brain cells to heed the countless warnings that are blasted about in every direction about securing your WiFi. Even if he didn't know how to do it himself, there are countless reputable techs that would make a house call and do it for under $100. Alas, he was probably one of the stingy old ******* that thought they knew better and refused said services. Too bad there are millions of other morons like him on our planet.

"The police followed proper procedure"
Well excuse me internal affairs... I would beg to differ... excessive force.. (tossing some one down the stairs and yelling pedophile) not doing a proper investigation ... oh maybe in this day and age a unsecured connection "omg do you suppose some one else could be connecting to this?" If it was insecure then any one can walk in and the police could also probably hack in with a warrant to see the mac address of the offending PC. OMG this unsecured router stuff is child's play to investigate how could the "PRO"S not complete a investigation.
"It appears that law enforcement followed the proper procedures while carrying out the raid" thats the results when you have cops investigating cops ..
I personally blame the router manufactures they should not allow any device to be set up just by plugging in the device to a modem and turning on wifi.. Lets face it any one on Neowin can probably create a semi secure network but the masses CANNOT For god sakes Vista annoyed the hell out of you with UAC just to dump the frigging trash can.. It should be come mandatory that you have to go though several notifications about allowing a insecure connection on your router. If you then choose to be so daft well then sucks to be you.

It should not be a crime to leave your wireless signal open for anyone to use, but if something happens then you should be held accountable for it. Hey people, it is very easy to secure your wireless signal, hey it should even be turned on by default and when the user connects it for the first time, or after a reset, it should pop up a wizard which would give you various options to secure your connection and have peace of mind.

soldier1st said,
It should not be a crime to leave your wireless signal open for anyone to use, but if something happens then you should be held accountable for it. Hey people, it is very easy to secure your wireless signal, hey it should even be turned on by default and when the user connects it for the first time, or after a reset, it should pop up a wizard which would give you various options to secure your connection and have peace of mind.

Thats great unless you use equipment that doesn't support encryption or mainstream encryption methods.

And Hey, It isn't turned on by default. For people who don't know much about computers it isn't easy either. Assuming they get past entering the IP, logging onto the router, going to wireless settings, SSID and encryption, choosing WEP, WPA, WPA2 then choosing TKIP or AES and then choosing a password.

Followed by entering the key onto every single computer/device that needs it. Followed by resetting the router, loosing this info, doing it agan

Heck most people don't know the difference between a router and a toaster let alone encryption and non encryption. To them, without a password It just works.

The guy might have had reason not to use encryption too.

Suppose I own a pub, coffee shop, or hotel. How do I communicate the wireless network password to customers without also communicating it to someone who might use it for "evil"?

The problem isn't that he didn't secure his network, it's that an IP address alone is enough to have the cops bust into your house and beat you up.

I still remember that video of that pizza delivery guy who had a bombed strapped to himself and the bomb went off, probably blowing his chest out, and the police running up and standing right next to him with their guns pointed at him. Its just insane.

jd100 said,
I'm guessing the Ryoken posting here is a cop, due to the way he is defending them.
Nope.. Web developer..

I just look at it from both sides.. The number of incidents of Cops shooting an innocent party is still far less than the number of incidents of Cops being SHOT while performing traffic stops, and out to serve a warrant at a "non-violent" criminals house/apt/etc.

You never know what is behind the door, or their mentality. If they just sent an officer and he walked up to the door with a shotgun because he's a ****ing wingnut who couldn't live with his secret love of pedophilia and wanted to go out in a blaze of glory, people would be asking Why didn't they burst in and control the situation first ..

I should also add accidents to happen, and you might mistakenly have your wireless encryption off due to upgrading or whatever. I know just recently this weekend found my 5ghz band which I haven't been using, was turned on with no encryption. I normally have it turned off, but alway had encryption on when it was on. I think it happened after updating the router firmware.

I hope he does sue. The police are always getting away with this BS. This could also have ruined any business he has, or his employment at a job, and even all his neighbors turning on him who may not trust him even after the truth came out.

I would say they even used excessive force. They always have the stupid idea they have to run up and tackle someone... its just ridiculous.

There would be a whole lot of people in jails, serving their sentence, who couldn't convince the police otherwise. This man is lucky, that it was found he was innocent.

You could say that he shouldve secured his wireless connection, but these days there are a few programs out there now that can easily crack the security, so if a pedo really wants to try and stay hidden and use someone elses wireless they can quite easily, so if everyone now decides to secure there wireless network, the more programs put there will be to crack them, kinda stuck in a loop really like with general illegal downloading

Imagine a situation where he did secure his wifi network, even with something broken like WEP using "freedom" as a password. When that comes up in court the jury will here "The system was secured using 64-bit encryption, the same strength as the stuff that keeps ATM details private when communicating with the banks. The odds of someone randomly guessing that password are 1 in 1.9x10^19. There's little doubt this guy was the one responsible, and he knew what he was doing was illegal because he took the time to hide his network traffic from public view!"

Do you really trust a jury of your peers to understand that 3DES isn't functionally equivalent to WEP? That dictionary-passwords drastically reduce the search space, or any other bit of network minutia? How much do you trust a typical American to reject the "if he's not doing anything illegal, why was he hiding stuff" argument? My peers are math, science, computer science graduates and I wouldn't even trust them to reject a charismatic prosecutor's claims.

I wouldn't even trust a judge to make the right decision, we've seen far too many cases where things that shouldn't count as "proof" do. See the numerous file sharing lawsuits, or number-plate photos of speeding drivers. At best you show that an item owned by <person x> was involved in some action. It doesn't prove that I was speeding and not my girlfriend, it doesn't prove that I was pirating movies and not my neighbor. But these have all been used as grounds to secure a conviction in the past, I have no reason to think the situation is likely to improve.

federal officers broke down the door to his house, threw him down the stairs and aimed assault weapons at him while yelling, “Pedophile!”

hahahaha. I am sure it didn't happen like that.

Lamp0 said,

hahahaha. I am sure it didn't happen like that.


According to the original story on MSNBC, it did happen like that.

Xinok said,

According to the original story on MSNBC, it did happen like that.

It doesn't really make sense though; They burst in, grabbed him, through him down the stairs and then pointed all there rifles at him and shouted, "PEDOPHILE!" at him.

Sounds like it's editorialized a good bit.

99.9% of users don't know much about PC security nor securing their router. In fact they're happy if they manage actually to enable Wi-Fi and make it work with iPad or Wii. IMO routers are very user unfriendly for average users. I could not even figure out IP adress of my router, because provider did not give it to me and it was not in manual...

Whilst I cannot walk around my neighborhood convincing all these senior citizens that their networks are at risk (and there's a few, I've war-driven around the block. I didn't download anything, just connected and went to google.com to make sure I was really connected.), I just make sure mine's secure and thank goodness I live around a bunch of old people, who have problems just clicking on "start" on their XP machines. There's one guy on the block I worry about sometimes, but he's one of those "Oh, I'm a hacker" type of people who wouldn't know a linux script if he had to use one to save his life, lol! Nevertheless, cool story, bro!

On Feb. 11, an investigator with the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees cybersecurity enforcement, signed in to a peer-to-peer file-sharing program from his office. After connecting with someone by the name of "Doldrum," the agent browsed through his shared files for videos and images and found images and videos depicting children engaged in sexual acts.

That's some mighty fine police work. Nevermind it could be an unsecured or hacked wireless network, a hacked PC acting as a proxy, a shared IP address, a friend, or somebody else living in the same household. Just contact the ISP, give them the IP address, and whatever name they give you, go arrest them!

Xinok said,

That's some mighty fine police work. Nevermind it could be an unsecured or hacked wireless network, a hacked PC acting as a proxy, a shared IP address, a friend, or somebody else living in the same household. Just contact the ISP, give them the IP address, and whatever name they give you, go arrest them!

SIG HEIL MEIN FUROR/PRESIDENT! Seriously, get your **** straight US.

Why did they have to bust the guy's door down with full SWAT gear? That's how innocent people get killed. The guy could have come into view holding a black remote control for his TV, been misinterpreted in the heat of the moment by one of the officers, and the guy would now be dead.

I understand the need to bust down the door in certain situations where the suspects are considered armed and dangerous. However, in this case, I do not understand why they would need to do anything more than surround the house with a few officers and then ring the doorbell. If that's too dangerous for the police, then they could have simply tailed the guy and picked him up when he left his house.

ALL suspects should be considered armed and dangerous.

Doing it this way is what keeps Cops from getting killed (and generally keeps them from needed to kill suspects).. Sure there are the odd cases where some cop is trigger happy, or more commonly, the person going to the door is an idiot devoid of common sense.. But treating each suspect like they could kill you is the smartest thing they can do. There are far too many cases where an office knocking on a door for something innocent, or non-violent, has ended with them being shot because they person behind it was more dangerous than they thought.. Not to mention all the cops that get shot doing simple traffic stops..

Better to be safe than sorry.

Ryoken said,
Doing it this way is what keeps Cops from getting killed (and generally keeps them from needed to kill suspects)..

Lol, yeah. Who cares if they burst into innocent peoples homes, endangering peoples lives, as long as they protect their own asses. What the hell happened to protect and serve?

Ryoken said,

There are far too many cases where an office knocking on a door for something innocent, or non-violent, has ended with them being shot because they person behind it was more dangerous than they thought.. .

Well then, that's more evidence that they need to do more research before arresting people.

Ryoken said,
ALL suspects should be considered armed and dangerous.

Do you know when the last time I was that I read about a police officer over here dying or even getting injured during an arrest / bust? I don't, because it's that rare. Most of the officers here don't even carry guns.

Well, perhaps you just live in a sick society. I feel bad for you.

daPhoenix said,

Do you know when the last time I was that I read about a police officer over here dying or even getting injured during an arrest / bust? I don't, because it's that rare. Most of the officers here don't even carry guns.

Well, perhaps you just live in a sick society. I feel bad for you.

It's fairly rare in Canada ( though we have had a few high-profile ones where several cops got killed.. But again very rare, I can only think of 2 times off the top of my head.. Plus there was the guy with the snowplow this past winter in Toronto who tried to run a bunch of cops over when they tried to pull him over for being in a stolen vehicle..

The US on the other hand is a whole other kettle of fish, I see enough US news to know it's not an uncommon occurrence.. Hardly day to day, but happens enough to always be prepared for.

Ryoken said,
It's fairly rare in Canada ( though we have had a few high-profile ones where several cops got killed.. But again very rare, I can only think of 2 times off the top of my head.. Plus there was the guy with the snowplow this past winter in Toronto who tried to run a bunch of cops over when they tried to pull him over for being in a stolen vehicle..

The US on the other hand is a whole other kettle of fish, I see enough US news to know it's not an uncommon occurrence.. Hardly day to day, but happens enough to always be prepared for.

You do a threat assessment and match the force necessary for the job. To do otherwise is to show inexperience and a lack of good judgment.

Do you realize how easy it would be to frame someone you hate for child porn? You say the magic words and everyone believes you, it's like a witch hunt... not to mention breaking into their home and planting stuff on their computer. So easy, and you lol while they sit in jail for 30 years and register as a sex offender. That's what scary about these child porn laws

AP707 said,
What happened to Innocent until proven otherwise??

Well 9/11 Happened b/c the terrorists hated our freedom. So to protect our freedoms, we increased our security by giving up our freedoms.

If you disagree with me, you are against freedom.

AP707 said,
What happened to Innocent until proven otherwise??

Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments.
But if there's a doubt you still can be arrested.

AP707 said,
What happened to Innocent until proven otherwise??
Generally, I've found you are arrested on the charge BEFORE you are convicted.. Which is all they did, arrested him..

AP707 said,
What happened to Innocent until proven otherwise??

I think that is a pretty ironic statement, considering you leap straight over the questionable accuracy of such a report; automatically accepting it as fact.

Ryoken said,
Generally, I've found you are arrested on the charge BEFORE you are convicted.. Which is all they did, arrested him..

Yep, that is all they did was arrest him, after they threw him down the stairs and wrongly called him a pedophile.

If you scan for wireless networks in just about any area you go, you'll find at least half a dozen open routers. It's scary how insecure people are.

And this is why I walked around my neighborhood informing my neighbors of the security threat posed with their open networks. We're all locked down with the highest compatible security settings.

The cops here were the stupidest idiots ever here. IP address DOES NOT prove that one particular person was downloading anything, even if it was secured. All it proves is that something was downloaded via that IP address.

testman said,
The cops here were the stupidest idiots ever here. IP address DOES NOT prove that one particular person was downloading anything, even if it was secured. All it proves is that something was downloaded via that IP address.

This. What if I visited him for a couple of hours and went on to child porn sites. He would be the criminal, not I. The system is flawed.

Nexus69 said,

This. What if I visited him for a couple of hours and went on to child porn sites. He would be the criminal, not I. The system is flawed.


He could be held responsible for not securing it's wireless network just like a library could be held responsible for illegal download with their own computer and not keeping track of people using their system.

testman said,
The cops here were the stupidest idiots ever here. IP address DOES NOT prove that one particular person was downloading anything, even if it was secured. All it proves is that something was downloaded via that IP address.

IP Address + exact time of use on the other hand proves just that. Sorry, but try to think before you speak. Any ISP can provide you with records going back several years as to who had which IP address and when.

Oh it's a lawsuit for sure....

Cause even though he wasn't convicted of anything...he will still have a background that any employer will check and see his record of being arrested but not convicted of child porn.

Background companies do more than just give you information about convictions...they give you arrest dates as well.

That in itself will cause doubts in employers minds and if they wanted to...not hire him and blame it on something else.

Plus the fact this guy will have to explain to everyone that does a background check on him that it wasn't him but someone else.

That in itself is worth a lot of money just for the embarassment and possible future earnings increases.

This guy is screwed in more ways than one now..and the police to say "I'm sorry..wrong guy" won't be enough.

texasghost said,
Oh it's a lawsuit for sure....

Cause even though he wasn't convicted of anything...he will still have a background that any employer will check and see his record of being arrested but not convicted of child porn...

Hmmm, would an arrest without conviction show up in a typical background check?

Thunderbuck said,

Hmmm, would an arrest without conviction show up in a typical background check?


Probably not since it was there mistake. I asked a friend of mine (ex-cop), said that in most instances it would be removed from the NCIC in situations like this.

eblkheart said,

Probably not since it was there mistake. I asked a friend of mine (ex-cop), said that in most instances it would be removed from the NCIC in situations like this.

If someone does a national background check..it won't show up as an arrest..but independent background check companies WILL do local arrest checks. Especially if you do a local background check. Publicdata.com will show EVERYTHING. Not just convictions. It will show arrests, court dates and outcomes of the judgements.

I have a few around me and even though it bugs me to WPS secure it if I connect i guess the owners never bothered with that. I feel like doing it for them only if i could figure out which one it was

Is it only me or the first line of the article was too dramatic to dramatic to be true.....I mean why would they shout "Paedophile" while arresting him? To may be get some audiences' cheer? lol

Mohitster said,
Is it only me or the first line of the article was too dramatic to dramatic to be true.....I mean why would they shout "Paedophile" while arresting him? To may be get some audiences' cheer? lol

The actions taken by the authorities does not surprise me one bit.

Mohitster said,
Is it only me or the first line of the article was too dramatic to dramatic to be true.....I mean why would they shout "Paedophile" while arresting him? To may be get some audiences' cheer? lol

They've probably just watched too many movies.

This is why I secure my router, no less than WPA2-AES encryption with a long passkey. Sadly, some people aren't savvy enough to do this nor are they aware of the dangers of an unsecured wireless network.

Xtreme2damax said,
This is why I secure my router, no less than WPA2-AES encryption with a long passkey. Sadly, some people aren't savvy enough to do this nor are they aware of the dangers of an unsecured wireless network.

If you own a router two years old or less, securing your router in this fashion is ridiculously simple. The problem is older wireless clients (in fact, the most troublesome wireless clients aren't PCs or Macs, but other wireless devices, such as consoles and smartphones; most don't support WPA2 or wireless-N, let alone both). It's why I await the first LTE Motorola Android smartphone; hopefully *it* supports WPA2 in wireless mode (which the HTC Thunderbolt does not).

Xtreme2damax said,
This is why I secure my router, no less than WPA2-AES encryption with a long passkey. Sadly, some people aren't savvy enough to do this nor are they aware of the dangers of an unsecured wireless network.

Even WPA2 can be cracked and you'll have a hell of a lot harder time proving that you weren't downloading illegal porn if your AP is secured...

Uhyve said,
Even WPA2 can be cracked and you'll have a hell of a lot harder time proving that you weren't downloading illegal porn if your AP is secured...

WPA2-AES has not been cracked and there are currently no known attacks available against it.

With WPA2-AES + certificate your chances of penetrating my WLAN is a round zero.

daPhoenix said,

WPA2-AES has not been cracked and there are currently no known attacks available against it.

With WPA2-AES + certificate your chances of penetrating my WLAN is a round zero.

You do realise that WPA2, by definition, is AES encrypted?

PGHammer said,
It's why I await the first LTE Motorola Android smartphone; hopefully *it* supports WPA2 in wireless mode (which the HTC Thunderbolt does not).
My HTC Hero, which is a few years old now, supports WPA2 fully. I'm even able to login to my university's RADIUS secured wireless network with it.

Cop shows and the spread of SWAT.

When it's become ingrained in the culture to knock down doors and wrestle people to the floor, the old way of doing things seems impossibly quaint. Knock on a door? Wait for them to answer? Walk a nonviolent suspect to the patrol car without handcuffing them? What are you, trying to coddle criminals?

TomJones said,
Cop shows and the spread of SWAT.

When it's become ingrained in the culture to knock down doors and wrestle people to the floor, the old way of doing things seems impossibly quaint. Knock on a door? Wait for them to answer? Walk a nonviolent suspect to the patrol car without handcuffing them? What are you, trying to coddle criminals?

The other thing to consider is how easy it is to wipe computer data. In the case of any case that depends on computer evidence, the arresting officers are risking a quick wipe if they just politely knock on the door.

ArmedMonkey said,
Because pedophiles are clearly likely to be armed and dangerous. They might need some frocks, but that's it. I mean really...
There are lots of cases where people suspected of "non-violent" crimes have resisted arrest with deadly force.

I'm with the Police, surprise em, arrest em, then you can talk.

Hell look at all the cops that get shot while making a simple traffic stop.. You just never know what someone will do, and it's in everyone's interest that you assume the worst.

Ryoken said,
Hell look at all the cops that get shot while making a simple traffic stop.. You just never know what someone will do, and it's in everyone's interest that you assume the worst.

Gotcha - so cops should approach everyone, even simple speeding offenses, with weapons drawn, "just in case," right? And throwing someone down the stairs, hey, he was a pedophile so who cares, right? Oh, innocent? Oh well, he's guilty of SOMETHING, everyone is. </sarcasm>

Fezmid said,

Gotcha - so cops should approach everyone, even simple speeding offenses, with weapons drawn, "just in case," right? And throwing someone down the stairs, hey, he was a pedophile so who cares, right? Oh, innocent? Oh well, he's guilty of SOMETHING, everyone is. </sarcasm>
Throwing someone down the stairs is illegal unless he was resisting.. So that's a separate legal issue.

But approaching someone in their car, or home, yes, It's far better to be safe than sorry. This isn't someone walking down the street, this was a man in his house with god knows what weapons and mentality..

Ryoken said,
I'm with the Police, surprise em, arrest em, then you can talk.

Except in this case the person being arrested was innocent and because of this, it's probably gonna be completely impossible to catch the actual criminal. The police and judge who granted the warrant acted completely irresponsibly, and easily could have gotten an innocent person killed.

Uhyve said,

Except in this case the person being arrested was innocent and because of this, it's probably gonna be completely impossible to catch the actual criminal. The police and judge who granted the warrant acted completely irresponsibly, and easily could have gotten an innocent person killed.

The article states that they did arrest someone else.

Uhyve said,

Except in this case the person being arrested was innocent and because of this, it's probably gonna be completely impossible to catch the actual criminal. The police and judge who granted the warrant acted completely irresponsibly, and easily could have gotten an innocent person killed.
What's worse, an Innocent man arrested, then Released, or a cop being killed going in unprepared ?

And how could they have got him killed ? If he drew a weapon ? Then he's not on innocent, or just an idiot and it's natural selection.. He got yelled at ( maybe thrown down stairs, if so then the officers involved should be charged ) but otherwise is safe and sound..

Even if he wasn't the one doing it, the first step is to get his equipment. Once they have that, and can see it wasn't him, they can use the router to get a mac address of other computers that connected do it, maybe even more details depending on the router, and go from there.. Not to mention they would have an area, wireless doesn't go That far in town's/cities..

Ryoken said,
What's worse, an Innocent man arrested, then Released, or a cop being killed going in unprepared ?

And how could they have got him killed ? If he drew a weapon ? Then he's not on innocent, or just an idiot and it's natural selection.. He got yelled at ( maybe thrown down stairs, if so then the officers involved should be charged ) but otherwise is safe and sound..

Even if he wasn't the one doing it, the first step is to get his equipment. Once they have that, and can see it wasn't him, they can use the router to get a mac address of other computers that connected do it, maybe even more details depending on the router, and go from there.. Not to mention they would have an area, wireless doesn't go That far in town's/cities..

Hm, to begin with... throwing someone down the stairs can lead to that someone breaking his neck. How's that for an innocent man being arrested? Even if he didn't break his neck, there are numerous things that can happen during a fall like that. Usually in the fight human vs gravity the human loses. Now, the article doesn't state whether the person resisted arrest or not, but one can assume that the average innocent will not do so. Did you bother to consider that for a moment when you started talking about dead cops and such?

Wireless doesn't go that far period. At most, you're talking about next door neighbors having access to that person's wireless in an area with single family homes or two apartments in each direction in the case of an apartment building. If they had checked whether the router's wireless was secured or not, they could have realized that raiding the location would be a bad idea before getting more data on the matter. Now the neighbor who was doing the downloads would have wiped his/her hard drive and thus you lose incriminating evidence and the actual criminal walks free even with a MAC address because that's circumstantial at best.

Then you get to the point where they went and accused the person on the spot of being a pedophile. If there was a neighbor within earshot, the whole neighborhood knows that the person was accused, but they "didn't find evidence to support the claim" and had to let him free. Even your closest friend with a child will start thinking: "Hmmm, what if he wiped the hard drive before they got to it? What if he actually is a pedophile?"

I'm afraid the arresting officers were the ones wrong in this case.

this guy definitely has a case for a lawsuit if he can prove police didnt do enough work to make an positive id and arrest...as for proving it hell have his work cut out for him

jwoodfin09 said,
this guy definitely has a case for a lawsuit if he can prove police didnt do enough work to make an positive id and arrest...as for proving it hell have his work cut out for him

I don't know that I'd blame the police, exactly. While there are certainly highly qualified computer forensics experts, I doubt they would have been in attendance at this bust. As a result, while the arresting officers were probably trained in securing computer evidence, I doubt anyone wound have thought to check for the unsecured wireless.

That said, sometimes it always seems to take a case like this to establish the investigative standard. I'd be pretty surprised to find any other police force in the US making a similar arrest without at least checking after this incident.

jwoodfin09 said,
this guy definitely has a case for a lawsuit if he can prove police didnt do enough work to make an positive id and arrest...as for proving it hell have his work cut out for him

It's police brutality regardless on his guild/innocents. There was no need to throw him down stairs and bully him. The police offers who did this should be punished. I'm sick and tired of the abusive and corrupt police force we have in this country. It sickens me to no end.

lmao that made me lol so bad xD he got called a pedo and thrown down stairs by police, then for them to find out he's innocent rofl

Aeronautics said,
Guilty until proven innocent.

Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments.

NesTle said,

Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments.

Yeah, but there is policy and then there is the practice of abusive law enforcement. Take for instance domestic abuse. In the case of domestic abuse where it is he-said she-said it is often the burden of the defendant to prove innocents, not for the state to prove guilt w/o reasonable doubt. Same for statutory rape cases.

Shadrack said,

Yeah, but there is policy and then there is the practice of abusive law enforcement. Take for instance domestic abuse. In the case of domestic abuse where it is he-said she-said it is often the burden of the defendant to prove innocents, not for the state to prove guilt w/o reasonable doubt. Same for statutory rape cases.

It isn't "abusive" law enforcement.

In a "he said, she said" environment then yes it's troublesome and the court will decide who is more beliveable.

In the case of (what I'm assuming you're saying) what we see here, it is not guilty until proven innocent, it hasn't even touched a court clerks hands.

Yes, the Police arrest first and ask questions later.

They are not a Judge, and if it is a false arrest, there are repercussions.

If the Police were effectively required to provide concrete proof every time someone was arrested, many people would walk free.

That said, I think there is a case for litigation here, if the "throwing down the stairs" and "Pedophile" comment is true.

boo_star said,
If the Police were effectively required to provide concrete proof every time someone was arrested, many people would walk free.

The police can't just have a SWAT team knock down your door whenever they feel like it. They need a warrant, which means talking to a judge. However, since there is no defence, the police are required to be responsible, for example by not claiming evidence has more weight than it does (like an IP address).

Aeronautics said,
Guilty until proven innocent.

That is a common misconception. The idea that you would not arrest someone unless they are guilty is impossible and not the intention of the 5th amendment. As long as cause can be shown (in this case a judge would have reviewed the information before issuing the arrest warrant) then law enforcement is well within their rights and responsibility to make arrests like this before guilt is determined.

Being treated like a suspect is not the same as being considered guilty. If you are suspected of murder then you can expect to be arrested (with force is deemed necessary), cuffed, driven to jail where you will stay the night or weekend until you can appear before a judge for an arraignment hearing. At that point it is determined if you can be freed during the trial or if you must remain in custody. You may feel pretty awful at this point and if you are innocent then it is very unfortunate but you are not being mistreated, that is the way the system works. Your guilt or innocence will be determined by a jury in court. Keep in mind that at every step along the way a judge (an elected official or appointed by an elected official) has been involved, it isn't as if you can get to this point because some cop had it in for you.

spacer said,
Seriously. They threw him down the stairs? Talk about excessive force...

Not only did they throw him down the stairs but they also acted as judge and jury by falsely calling him a pedophile. Thats a complete violation of his civil rights!

BGM said,
just a mistake, no need for that

The thing is a lot of people have no idea what the Feds so in raids and this is exactly how they treat you when they bust down your door. It isn't locked down to only child pornography cases. The thing is, not many people know the true force they use and those who do really don't have a way to fight it. It is one easy way to get PTSD because they don't really identify theirself as cops and for a moment at least, you think you are about to be killed.

BGM said,
just a mistake, no need for that

Being accused of being a pedophile will probably change his life forever, it's one of the worst thing that can happen to someone, and even though hes innocent there will probably people who still think he was involved, or maybe some people will never find out he was proven innocent... how would you like to carry that around for the rest of your life?

I imagine being thrown down the stairs is the last thing hes thinking about.

BGM said,
just a mistake, no need for that

Yeah sure, I'll come at your door, knock it down, throw you down the stairs, call you pedophile, let all your neighbors watch you being hand cuffed, drag you like a pedophile and make your life hell for as long as I can until I think you're not it. Ahhh, sounds sweet no, just a mistake. If you have any brain cells left in that head of yours, think before you talk!

NPGMBR said,

Not only did they throw him down the stairs but they also acted as judge and jury by falsely calling him a pedophile. Thats a complete violation of his civil rights!

You would too if you had kids and were being posted online. But yeah, I'd feel ****ed about being accused of something I wasn't.

Conjor said,
A smell a lawsuit...

I would demand that the officers involved be fired and lose their pensions. They took too much force and enjoyed it. Abuse of power. No excuse at all.

And to the fools who believe; "Better a 100 innocent man hang than one guilty man go free...." Should realize that it could be them hung and innocent. This is not Old Salem where to be accused was to be guilty.

Conjor said,
This is the US we are talking about here. People sue for much less.

Do we really need to mention the McDonald coffee lawsuit? She didn't know it was going to be hot.......

Huffdady said,

Do we really need to mention the McDonald coffee lawsuit? She didn't know it was going to be hot.......

She didn't know that it was going to be excessively hot. There is a difference....

Foub said,

She didn't know that it was going to be excessively hot. There is a difference....

Seeing as people go out of their way for the famously "excessively" hot coffee, that's like saying she didn't know they served chicken mcnuggets.

PeterTHX said,

Seeing as people go out of their way for the famously "excessively" hot coffee, that's like saying she didn't know they served chicken mcnuggets.

Apples, and oranges. That is because they usually take the coffee with them and drink it later and it has cooled to normal levels by then. Doesn't need to be that hot while served in store.