Instructions: The
student must then post 2 replies of at least 250 words. Each reply must
incorporate at least 1 scholarly citation in APA format. Any sources cited must
have been published within the last five years. Acceptable sources include peer
reviewed journal articles, textbooks, the Bible, etc.
Original Question (DO NOT ANSWER): United States v. Steven C. Perrine
518 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2008)
The Perrine case illustrates how law enforcement must utilize the statutory framework to trace the source of criminal activity and then operate within the Fourth Amendment framework to seize evidence on the digital device that was the source of the activity. Some aspects of an investigation do not implicate any regulatory regime and law enforcement may, just like any private citizen, utilize the numerous ways that the Internet now offers to learn something to facilitate the investigation. Hence, an investigator passes in and out of three frameworks to obtain digital evidence: 1) statutes; 2) the Fourth Amendment; and, 3) non-regulated cyber-space. The point here is not to gain an understanding of the doctrines but to understand the complexity of such investigations, including passing in and out of various legal regimes during the course of the investigation. Picture yourself as the investigator in this case.
Question 1: What evidence of crime is there? (recount the facts of the case).
Question 2: Who is the criminal; how do the police find him?
Question 3: What do you do next? (Discuss the various legal regimes that the police must confront and how they must comply with those regimes. For example, search engines such as Google, public websites, and chat rooms offer a host of information to anyone who chooses to use them. Perhaps you could use a free IP locater service and enter the IP address in Perrine to show how easy it is to find who is assigned the IP address. Discuss all the steps you would take until you have seized Vanlandingham’s computer and why each step is important.
Reply 1: Taylor Huff
On September
2, 2005, a man contacted police and reported that he had been in an online
chatroom with someone who was sharing videos depicting violent sexual acts with
underage children (Clancy, 2023). This case is now known as United States v. Steven C. Perrine.
After receiving this call, the police spoke to the complainant,
who recounted his experience. Following this contact with the complainant,
police requested that the chatroom host provide the subscriber information for
the user that interacted with the complainant (Clancy, 2023). The information
for this account came back to Steven Perrine and provided an address for him in
Witchita, Kansas (Clancy, 2023).
Steven Perrine had a prior conviction “for sexual
exploitation of a chid” and was even still on probation for this crime at
the time of this complaint (Clancy, 2023). Three months following the initial
chatroom report, police in Kanas executed a search warrant for Mr. Perrine’s
residence and collected his computer in addition to other illegal items
(Clancy, 2023). It was later discovered that Mr. Perrine’s computer contained
“thousands of images of child pornography” (Clancy, 2023). Mr.
Perrine did admit to using the screen name associated with the pornography
depicted in the chatroom (Clancy, 2023). Additionally, he shared that he had
been using a peer-to-peer file sharing platform which allowed others, even
strangers, to access his computer and view his files (Clancy, 2023).
Furthermore, the chatroom host testified that Mr. Perrine’s internet protocol
(IP) address traced back to the username he claimed to use and his internet
provider testified that the IP address was connected to his address (Clancy, 2023).
As an investigator in this case, there are a few options
available on the search for additional evidence. As mentioned, there are free
IP-locators online with the ability to trace IP information to individuals.
Other available resources include teams such as the International Crimes
Against Children (ICAC). Since this case involves the endangerment of children,
the ICAC could be available to assist with the case to ensure information is
collected and protected for prosecution. Additionally, search engines such as
google and even social media sites could be helpful in searching for more
information about the offender even without a proper name. Searching for the
username associated with the offender may prove to be fruitful as oftentimes,
people reuse usernames and this could lead to the identification of an offender
before a commercial provider can find and release information. As a last ditch
effort, communication could be continued with the offender in an attempt to
gather additional trust, information, and evidence. These efforts could provide
supplemental information while the complainants computer is searched for more
information to identify the offender.
In
today’s digital world, investigators must be creative and operate within the
bounds of the law. A more detailed investigation could include steps to
identify the children in an effort to identify the offender. “In contact
tracing, the origination vector (including the time and method of contact) is
identified, as are any potential additional propagation vectors. For child sec
exploitation material (CSEM) offenses, this aligns with current United States
laws in that identifying when and how the content was obtained is one of the
most effective methods of proving receipt charges. Further, identifying any
propagation of the content after it is received can be used for proving
distribution. Additionally, by working backward and referring information as
needed to other jurisdictions where the content originated, the original
‘patient zero’ may be identified which would directly support victim
identification and rescue” (Steel et al, 2024).
Situations
like these cause a significant amount of anger because the victims are helpless
and innocent. We must believe in the power of the justice system and as the
Bible tells us in Ecclesiastes 3:17, “I said to myself, ‘God will bring
into judgement both the righteous and the wicked, for there will be a time for
every activity, a time to judge every deed” (King James Bible, 1769/2017).
References
Clancy,
T.K. (2023). Cyber crime and digital
evidence: Materials and cases (4th ed.). Carolina Academic
Press.
King James Bible. (2017). Cambridge University Press. (Original work
published 1769)
Steele, C.M.S., Newman, E., O’Rourke, S., and Quayle, E.
(2024, March). Improving child sexual exploitation material investigations:
Recommendations based on a review of recent research findings. The Police Journal, 97(1). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0032258X221142525Links to an external site.
Reply 2: Kelsey
Nesnick
James Vanlandingham (username “dana_hotlips05”)
received an invitation from Steven Perrine, who goes by
“stevedragonslayer,” to view a webcam video featuring two nude
6–9-year-old females. Vanlandingham informed his neighborhood police agency of
this. Vanlandingham carried on talking to Perrine and informed her he
appreciated the kind of stuff that was being aired while they waited for the
police to show up. Perrine then proceeded to play a number of more recordings
of young females engaging in various explicit sexual actions. Perrine ceased
providing video clips prior to the police showing up, but Vanlandingham was
able to record their chat. After looking into the situation, Pennsylvanian
authorities were able to get a disclosure order requiring Yahoo to give them
any material related to the account “stevedragonslayer.” The IP
address of the username, which was kept up to date by Cox Communication Inc.,
was discovered by Yahoo. Then, Pennsylvania officials got an additional
disclosure order requiring Cox to give more details about the IP address that
Yahoo had provided. Steve Perrine of Wichita, Kansas, was the account holder of
the IP address that was provided. It was found via additional investigation
that Perrine was on probation due to a previous state conviction for child sex
abuse. The Wichita police department obtained all the information and then
issued a search warrant for Perrine’s home. They were able to obtain evidence
that proved he was guilty of possessing child pornography when they confiscated
his computer.
In this instance, Steven Perrine is portrayed as the criminal.
According to USDOJ (2020), child pornography is defined as any visual
representation of sexually explicit behavior involving an adolescent (someone
under the age of 18) and includes photographs, films, videos, computers, and
computer-generated images. Additionally, it is illegal against federal law to
produce, distribute, receive, or possess images of child pornography (USDOJ,
2020). Perrine not only had illicit material in his possession, but he also
shared it by disseminating child pornography online and on his computer.
Information on the user “stevedragonslayer” posting obscene videos of
minors in a Yahoo chat room was provided to the police by someone who reported
the user.Fortunately, the person who brought this to our attention was
perceptive enough to preserve their dialogue. Local law enforcement obtained a
disclosure order from Yahoo and Cox to release information about Perrine when
they were able to conduct more investigation. Because of The Stored
Communication Act, which protects the privacy of electronic data, law
enforcement agents were able to obtain information. Protecting novel forms of
communication against unauthorized eavesdropping and assisting law enforcement
by offering investigative methods for communication interception were the
primary objectives of this legislation. According to Crowell (2018). If the
government has good reason to do so during an investigation, it may request
transaction records and saved communications from third-party service providers
under Section 2703 of the ECPA. (Clancy, 2019).
The law enforcement organizations who conducted the
investigation in this case followed all the proper procedures. There was
sufficient probable cause for the police to look into the matter once
Vanlandingham reported his chat with Perrine to the local authorities. Probable
cause was required in order to get a disclosure order from Cox and Yahoo. After
Perrine’s identity was established, officials obtained a search warrant for his
computer. Perrine possessed more than 16,000 child pornographic photos, according
to the search. Reporting the interaction with “stevedragonslayer” by
Vanlandingham was the most crucial step in our research. As a result, the
police were able to look into the case more deeply and without going against
Perrine’s Fourth Amendment rights. According to Cordova, Alvarez, Ferrandiz,
and Perez-Bravo (2018), handling crimes using cyber devices necessitates the
use of skilled professionals during the investigative stage, during
prosecution, and in court.
Cordova,
J.G.L., Álvarez, P.F.C., De Jesús Echerri Ferrandiz, F., Pérez-Bravo, J.C.: Law
versus cybercrime. Glob. Jurist 18(1), 1–9 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1515/gj-2017-0024
https://doi.org/10.1515/gj-2017-0024
Crowell,
Donald L. III. (2018). The privacy of things: how the stored communications act
has been outsmarted by smart technology. Federal Communications Law
Journal, 70(2), 211-236.
Thomas K Clancy. Cyber Crime and Digital Evidence. Durham, North
Carolina: (Caroline Academy Press), 2019.
