Shoplifting, Larceny, Robbery, Theft Website evidence admissible?

[jvdub]

The question is really about the USA and Canada in general, and whether evidence taken from a person's website can be used in court as evidence of a crime.

To make this clearer, "urban explorers" trespass on properties and document the visits with pictures and stories of the visit on their own websites, as well as web forums. Can the owner of a property thus "explored", upon seeing and reading about the crime taking place (potentially trespassing or breaking and entering), use the website evidence to lay charges against the person?

Would pictures posted to the website by the website owner, of the property, with the person visible in them, be proof of the crime ? If the owner of the website described how they performed the crime, would that also be usable against them?

I ask because I know of a person that participates in that "hobby" that was contacted by a police officer saying he would be charged, based solely upon the evidence of the person's website (pictures and writing indicating the crime).

Hopefully someone knows a bit about admissability of website evidence. Thank you.

 

[CdwJava]

CAN a person be charged based solely upon photographic and written evidence from a web site? Sure. WILL they be convicted? Hard to say.

The internet has been a starting place for many investigations, and web sites have proven valuable sources of damning information against defendants.

Taken by themselves, certain images cannot be effectively used (like a subject holding what looks like a gun, for example - no way to prove it is a real gun). But, unless the defense argues that the image was doctored and they lied about their exploits on a web site, it would be kind of hard to argue against pictures of someone on a property accompanied by descriptive text.

So, for the US side of the occasion, it depends on the type of the offense, the laws of the particular state in question, and how definitive the evidence might be. Corroboration is also important.

In short, the answer is, "Maybe."

- Carl

 

[jvdub]

I appreciate the answer so quick.

So, say a person had a web domain registered in their name, posted pictures of themselves on the property, and wrote explaining how they gained access to the place. Do you think, in those circumstances, they would be able to argue that it wasn't them? was all fake? or some such defense?

Would records from the ISP showing the pictures and web update had been uploaded from the person's IP address be valid evidence in trying to prove guilt and convict?

Also, if a person took their website down (removing evidence) upon being charged or threatened with being charged, does that constitute despoiling of evidence?

 

[CdwJava]

Removing a web site would not likely be tampering with evidence. But, it would be safe to assume that by the time the charges were made all the relevant data will have been saved and logged.

If you intend to post evidence of your crimes, you can expect to potentially be charged for the crime. It's that simple. If it is a simple misdemeanor for trespassing, I doubt the agency will chase you down if you are a state or two away. if you are within or near the jurisdiction, there is a very good chance they will contact you and they might even arrest you - it depends on the offense.

I have made cases for marijuana cultivation, gang activity, even thefts and burglaries based upon photos and blogs. I suspect making a case for trespassing would be a little easier.

- Carl

 

[jvdub]

I have made cases for marijuana cultivation, gang activity, even thefts and burglaries based upon photos and blogs. I suspect making a case for trespassing would be a little easier.

- Carl

In regards to cases made from photos and blogs; was there any issue with establishing the evidence as legitimate? Someone specifically said this "there is no proof of you being on that property other than those pictures. Simply having pictures of a building is not enough to have charges pressed against you when they cannot prove that you took them." Does that hold any water as a defense?

 

[CdwJava]

In regards to cases made from photos and blogs; was there any issue with establishing the evidence as legitimate?

There was always that issue. However, in each of the cases I was involved in, the website evidence prompted the defense to plead out rather than risk taking it to trial and losing. Juries tend to believe that when someone posts images and brags about their crime that they did it. It's kinda hard to throw out a claim that it was all a lie and that it was photoshopped and have someone actually believe it.

Someone specifically said this "there is no proof of you being on that property other than those pictures. Simply having pictures of a building is not enough to have charges pressed against you when they cannot prove that you took them." Does that hold any water as a defense?

It might ... but, it depends on the state in question and the law enforcement agency or prosecutor that might try to pursue it. By itself, a photo is not likely to be good evidence for a host of reasons. But, ask yourself this question: "Will a jury believe my bragging on the website? Or, will they believe me later when I claim to have made the whole thing up?"

Understand, also, that the defense will almost certainly never put YOU (the defendant) on the stand to say you never took it. A jury will find this curious.

It will be up to the state to prove that the crime was committed, not the defense to show that it was not. However, images and text can go a long way to convincing a jury. And if the state can connect the defendant to the IP and/or the computer(s) or camera(s) involved, it makes the case that much stronger.

But, why would someone go through such an effort to pursue trespassers? Just what kind of property are you trespassing on? And, are you damaging or stealing while passing through? If you are not harming anything, I can't imagine anyone would waste any time trying to jump through the hoops to make such a circumstantial case, even if they could.

I know I wouldn't go through the time and effort to pursue a misdemeanor trespassing charge ... so, I suspect this is something much more involved than merely walking across some rancher's open range. Perhaps you'd care to explain it a little more?

- Carl

 

[jvdub]

I'm not sure if you're familair with the hobby in question. People go to places that are usually abandoned (examples could be old closed down hospitals or power plants) or steam tunnels at universities, or quite often a building in the midst of being decommissioned. So typically it would mean being inside a building without permission. The goal is generally seeing places they would not otherwise be able to see, and take pictures.

I'd expect that in some cases, breaking and entering may be a possible charge, depending on what the person did to gain access to the place. Vandals often wreck buildings, and these explorers will then take advantage of that fact.

 

[CdwJava]

I'm not sure if you're familair with the hobby in question.

Not entirely, no. But, if it involves trespassing in places where you might not otherwise be allowed to go, you are potentially posting incriminating evidence against yourself. Provided the offense is serious enough where you commit the offense, or the owners can articulate damage they believe can be attributed to you, they just might pursue you. Otherwise, I doubt the police are going to waste a lot of time on a misdemeanor unless you are in theirs or a neighboring jurisdiction. I know we would not go out of county to investigate a misdemeanor trespass case.

And, of course, for the crime of trespassing to be completed, unless this is clearly a residence or enclosed real property, signage or admonishment might be required per state law prior to the crime being completed.

People go to places that are usually abandoned (examples could be old closed down hospitals or power plants) or steam tunnels at universities, or quite often a building in the midst of being decommissioned. So typically it would mean being inside a building without permission. The goal is generally seeing places they would not otherwise be able to see, and take pictures.

As I thought.

I'd expect that in some cases, breaking and entering may be a possible charge, depending on what the person did to gain access to the place. Vandals often wreck buildings, and these explorers will then take advantage of that fact.

In my state "breaking" and entering would be vandalism and trespassing. Other states might have different laws. The risk people run is that the damage found later may be blamed on the "explorer" whose proof of entry is posted on a website and blog.

I think what you have to ask yourself is, after all these years, just how many people with this unusual - though, admittedly, intriguing - hobby, have actually been prosecuted at all? Of those prosecuted, how many have been prosecuted based upon their web postings? I suspect the answer to the former is "very few," and the latter, "almost none." I just do not see this as a priority unless you are breaking in to national monuments or state/national park sites, and even then I can't see them wasting a lot of time with this. In some states they might not even be able to get a search warrant for a misdemeanor trespass, so computer and camera records could not be seized.

Again, prosecution is possible. I just do not see it as all that likely.

- Carl

 

[jvdub]

Makes sense to me.

My feeling was that unless there was vandalism, theft, or other serious crimes, that it simply wouldn't be worth the time to pursue. Not because it wasn't possible, mostly just because the amount of effort to pursue a minor charge of trespassing like that wouldn't seem to balance with the end result.

 

[CdwJava]

Yep. I know that WE wouldn't pursue it, and we have time on our hands in my department. Now, if we had a real pushy victim, a well marked structure, and a suspect that lived in the area, maybe.

- Carl

 

[jvdub]

Yep. I know that WE wouldn't pursue it, and we have time on our hands in my department. Now, if we had a real pushy victim, a well marked structure, and a suspect that lived in the area, maybe.

- Carl

I suppose if it were municipal or government property it may make a difference?

 

[CdwJava]

I suppose if it were municipal or government property it may make a difference?

It might. But, the laws would still be the same, and it would still be a misdemeanor, for the most part, and not a high priority.

- Carl

 

[jvdub]

It might. But, the laws would still be the same, and it would still be a misdemeanor, for the most part, and not a high priority.

- Carl

I was just thinking of it more in the way of pissing off the wrong guy, who says "I don't care if you think its a waste of time, he made us look bad, so pursue this..."

 

[CdwJava]

Ultimately it will be the law enforcement agency that has to pursue it. The property owner - even if a government agency - may feel dissed, but if the agency does not have the resources or patience to pursue it, they just won't do it .. at least not very far, anyway.

- Carl