
Dotcom search warrants declared illegal - timClicks
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/dotcom-search-warrants-declared-illegal-ca-122374
======
sown
I'm not declaring this a conspiracy. It could have been as easily as some
prosecutor somewhere letting zeal exceed judgement. But...

I somehow get the impression that what ever forces perpetrated this don't
really care it wasn't legal, so long as MU got ruined for some reason, any
reason. Even if it was by accident.

~~~
joering2
I'm not sure. Such a ruling like this one would give Mr. Dotcom "do not touch
this guy" status (if he wins, expect him coming back from ashes and starting
this or another online business, whether on the edge of legality, or not,
still making big bucks), that means next time a prosecutor will try to go
after him whether due to RIAA/political pressures or not, they will be highly
discouraged by the outcome of this case.

Such a ruling would also encourage others to do things on the edge of the law
because others got away with it. So no, by any means they wanted to put Mr.
Dotcom behind bars and keep him there while thousands of his hard drives rot
and fall apart.

~~~
adventureful
I wouldn't assume the authorities in question had any of this well mapped out
(their preparation indicates they didn't), nor that they're all that
interested in this case (it's not that high on the todo list). If this were
strictly a matter of stopping Dotcom, and it were that critically important,
they'd simply kill him if they couldn't beat him in court (heart attack, he is
after all morbidly obese). We kill foreigners 24/7 around the globe for all
sorts of reasons (war on drugs, war on terrorism, who knows what else), they
could just internally label him an intellectual property terrorist, Obama
signs off on an assassination order, and goodnight.

I believe destroying MU was thrown together mostly haphazardly out of
desperation. This is an annoying sideshow for an organization like the FBI.
They're doing the bidding of a higher up master, that is doing the bidding of
the money in Hollywood.

~~~
legutierr
"We kill foreigners 24/7 around the globe for all sorts of reasons (war on
drugs, war on terrorism, who knows what else), they could just internally
label him an intellectual property terrorist, Obama signs off on an
assassination order, and goodnight."

Seriously, what are you suggesting? That the US assassinates prominent
citizens of allied nations inside allied nations for no other reason but to
support the business interests of large multinational corporations?

Are we really seen to be such a mafia state as this, now? Honestly, when has
this ever happened?

~~~
sp332
We've funded coups <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic#Honduras>
and instigated armies against their own people
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_massacre> in order to support business
interests.

~~~
refurb
I'm sure these people we "instigated" had no personal motivations in matter at
all.

~~~
sp332
You really think they'd turn their guns on their own citizens just to break up
a union dispute with an American corporation?

------
revelation
Its actually not too rare for these to be declared illegal. The problem is
that most judiciary offer no protection in this case. Fruit of the forbidden
tree is not a world wide principle.

------
res0nat0r
This appears to be related to the raid on his house, is the seizure of all of
the servers in VA still valid? That is where I'm sure the majority of the
evidence related to the case lies and if that is still valid I would think
there is still a major case to be had.

------
Piskvorrr
I guess that since the farcical attempt at pressuring NZ into submission
failed, a full-scale war on NZ is now MAFIAA's only option. This shouldn't be
very hard to arrange - NZ surely must have WMDs, no?

~~~
Negitivefrags
New Zealand is probably one of the most unlikely nations to harbour WMDs
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand%27s_nuclear-
free_zo...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand%27s_nuclear-free_zone))

~~~
Xylakant
Please don't confuse me with facts, I already have an opinion!

(I assume the OP refers to the Iraq war which was justified with WMD that
never were found)

~~~
tdrgabi
Actually, if I understand the wikipedia link, the nuclear free zone allows
nuclear weapons.

~~~
Negitivefrags
> prohibiting any New Zealand citizen or resident "to manufacture, acquire,
> possess, or have any control over any nuclear explosive device."

~~~
obtu
That seems designed to allow NATO enclaves.

~~~
genbattle
NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; New Zealand is in the South
Pacific.

We haven't allowed any naval vessel carrying nuclear material (be it for
weapons or power supply) to enter our waters since 1984. It's always been
quite a point of contention with the US. It also happens to be a point of
pride for the grand majority of Kiwis.

------
mtgx
So who goes to jail over this? I mean, it's "illegal" isn't it? So that
implies someone must get some jail time for it?

~~~
dangrossman
No, that's not implied at all. The remedy for most "illegal" things is
repayment of damages suffered, or a statutory fine. Nor can you imprison an
inanimate entity, like the government that carried out the illegal warrant.

~~~
morsch
How convenient.

~~~
Kell
What's convenient ? ? The inability to imprison inanimate entities ? Isn't
that... you know... logic.

Maybe you're speaking of the fact that most democratic judicial system have a
tendency not to send everyone to prison ? I understand that this seems strange
in US... but in most places, prison is really the last resort. And I'm happy
that people are not sent to jail jail for mistrials. Or for abuse of the
judicial system. If I had a risk of imprisonment... I'll probably not even
risk any judicial process... too risky.

I think your being quite silly in there.

~~~
harshreality
I think the point is, there's a line of thinking that when anyone, a person or
an entity, uses force against someone in a way determined to be illegal (not
just making some mistake on paperwork), some _person_ should be put in prison
over it. Whether it's the leader of the illegal operation, or the bureaucrat
who authorized it.

A few bureaucrats and agents would end up in prison due to mistakes, but
_private citizens_ already end up in prison due to law enforcement mistakes.
If government employees don't like taking that risk, they shouldn't be
government employees. Better a few government employees behind bars "unfairly"
than more than a few citizens behind bars "unfairly".

~~~
Kell
I'm sorry, but you have a terrible conception of Justice.

We should never think that prison "should" be the solution for anything.
That's the reason there is 4.5 times more persons in prison per capita in US
than in NZ [1].

In continental Europe we tend to consider that prison is there as a punishment
for really severe things (killings, sexual abuse, severe drug trafficking
etc.) OR a way to avoid reiteration. If there is no risk of reiteration and
the damage was light, then fines and other non-socially disruptive punishments
are better suited.

And your conception that : private citizens always end up in prison so should
government representatives, is wrong. If private citizens always end up in
prison, then that's a problem that should be solved... not ampliated by
putting more people behind the bars. Your vision almost sounds to me like a
bitter revenge : "Hiii, we pooooor citizens always go to jail, they should
taste their own medicine". No, the least prison, the better.

The best example of this is your terrible transformation of an important
Judicial principle. You wrote : « Better a few government employees behind
bars "unfairly" than more than a few citizens behind bars "unfairly". »

Dude. Read yourself. There is no way, people behind the bars unfairly is
better than anything. It's the wrost thing. Remember the Blackstone Principle
: "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

And finally, do not forget that police is by essence making mistakes, it's
impossible not to do, because they do something called investigation. If they
were only to act in full certainty, then they would almost never act. They
gather data and facts about a possible crime, and they have to use force to do
that, and then they send all of this to a judge who will decide if there is
enough to effectively find someone guilty or not. What you are asking for, is
that police only act when they're so certain of the guilt that there is almost
no need anymore for a trial. The judicial system cannot work like that. You
must allow police force to make mistakes... or we're going to end up with
police acting like Judge Dredd.

Which by the way does not mean there is not going to be any punishment, and if
they do some really grave trespassing, then they might even end up in prison.
It's a question of scale.

[1] [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-
pris...](http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-
per-capita)

~~~
white_devil
> We should never think that prison "should" be the solution for anything.
> That's the reason there is 4.5 times more persons in prison per capita in US
> than in NZ

It's because in the US, prisons are a business venture.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/private-prisons-
buy...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/private-prisons-buying-state-
prisons_n_1272143.html)

"Corrections Corporation of America, the nation's largest operator of for-
profit prisons, has sent letters recently to 48 states offering to buy up
their prisons as a remedy for "challenging corrections budgets." In exchange,
the company is asking for a 20-year management contract, plus _an assurance
that the prison would remain at least 90 percent full_"

------
timdorr
Anyone have a quick summary of this?

~~~
DigitalSea
Not a quick summary but...

This line from the ruling PDF basically explains why the searches were
declared illegal:

"The warrants did not adequately describe the offences to which they related.
Indeed they fell well short of that. They were general warrants, and ash such,
are invalid."

The judge then goes on to say:

"Before I leave this topic, there is one further peculiarity about the form in
which the warrants were sought and issued which I record: the applications did
not extend to racketeering, or to conspiracy to commit copyright infringement.
It included money laundering rather than conspiracy to commit money
laundering.

Attached to the warrant was this document that stipulated what could be
searched and seized by the authorities. It listed this particular part:

"All records and things in whatever form, including communications, relating
to the activities of the Mega Conspiracy, including but not limited to,
Megaupload, Megavideo and Megastuff Limited"

The judge says about this (in reference to Dotcom's lawyer I believe):

"I accept his submission that without definition of the 'Mega Conspiracy' it
is hard to imagine what falls within this category"

Another juicy bunch of tidbits are these:

"Assuming then that the police were operating under a valid warrant, what were
the police entitled to do in this case? There were required to conduct a
preliminary sorting exercise at the premises, as the warrants could not
authorise an officer to removed from the premises indiscriminately all
documents and records. In this case the police faced the additional difficulty
that they were not the investigating officers and had limited knowledge of the
operation."

"Given the state of knowledge of the police, it would have been proper
approach for them to involve officers from the FBI in this exercise. Section
46(1) authorises the use by police of "such assistants as may be reasonable in
the circumstances for the purpose of the entry and search. Because assistants
would have been foreign law enforcement officials it maybe have been prudent
to have them as named assistants in the warrants authorising the search."

"Providing the police act reasonable in so doing, following the initial
sorting exercise, they were then entitled to remove from the premises those
things which at the time they reasonable believed contained material which
might be of evidential value."

Short story is: the warrants were too broad, didn't accurately describe what
the items were being seized for in relating to the offences and thus the
warrants were unlawful not to mention the police technically weren't allowed
to seize what they did from the properties in the warrants.

~~~
shrikant
> _"All records and things in whatever form, including communications,
> relating to the activities of the Mega Conspiracy, including but not limited
> to, Megaupload, Megavideo and Megastuff Limited"_

That bit reads like someone wrote up a search warrant after watching a few
episodes of CSI: Miami.

~~~
lostlogin
More like a police force looking to impress the FBI bent over backwards. What
a bunch of provincial clowns. I'm sad to be a New Zealander when stuff like
this happens (see the police raids on so called 'terrorists' and the recent
court shambles for more of the same).

------
lostlogin
I took it to mean that by and large there is no support for nuclear weapons by
New Zealanders.

~~~
locusm
I was 15 at the time and I recall my family being anti nuke but not anti
american. We banned any nuclear powered ships from entering the harbour from
memory.

------
beehave
What's somewhat amusing about this, perhaps, is that NZ up until recently did
not even have a "Bill of Rights". And the inspiration for it came from guess
where? Many years ago, one of NZ's former Ministers of Justice spent some
years in the US (U. of Iowa? I have forgotten) and when he returned to the
Antipodes he brought the idea home with him. Though there is no
"constitution", and Parliament is still supreme, NZ does have a Bill of
Rights. And though it's rather unusual in a Parliamentary system and arguably
"toothless", it was mentioned in this opinion!

Now, looking at this series of events: the use of the NZ equivalent of a "SWAT
team" in order to take an allleged copyright infringer (with no history of
violent crime) into custody (how much did that show of force cost the NZ
taxpayer?), and the way they handled the evidence, it's the US that seems to
be lacking procedural safeguards. Or maybe they are just ignoring them.

NZ is now put in the strange position of reviewing the actions of the country
which is supposed to be the "world leader" in concepts like freedom from
unlawful seizures of property; heck, they inspired NZ to adopt a Bill of
Rights!

Wozniak was recently in NZ and visited Dotcom.

At least one prominent NZ musician has stated he's behind Dotcom's cause.

Whether or not it was intentional it seems the way this case was handled by
whomever was making the decisions is backfiring on them on the public
relations front.

~~~
timClicks
No, we don't have a Bill of Rights. We have no supreme law. Nor should we.
That just drags large, societal disputes into the courts rather than the
democratically elected Parliament. That means that the highest courts become
political battlefields. See also political appointments to the USA's Supreme
Court.

The Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act are ordinary law. If a future
Parliament wanted to breach the rights provided in those statutes, they need
to face the political force of doing so.

------
accountswu
When I first read the title I thought that search engines that all .com domain
searches have been declared illegal and now the Kiwis cannot search on .com
domains (I know that sounds weird, more like meaningless :)).

Edit: Now the title has been updated, previously it was: <Dotcom searches
declared illegal (judgment full text)>

