illegal porn seizure

ugh, i was thinking of how to write a title for this post, and kept coming up with ones that would be terrible. witty, yet mildly offensive. i mean, you want a catchy title, but also one that will be good for searching purposes.

"child pornographer may get off." gross.
"cops get bust red handed by pornographer's defense." not so bad, but also a little vague.
"porn tossed." well, uh.

the one i went with, "illegal porn seizure" makes me chuckle, because it makes me think about having a seizure. well, seizures themselves aren't funny, but a seizure caused by illegal porn? comedy.

so, to the article. it seems that a former sheriff was busted for having both pictures and movie files of child pornography on his computer. now, no one is disputing this. he is a bad person for this. i'm grossed out by it, and frankly, don't want anyone to think that i agree with child porn in the least by writing this entry.

it seems that all the evidence from his computer is going to be thrown out. why you ask? well, our american justice system is working like it should. it's protecting people from the at-times villainous government. you see, the defendant's lawyer in this case has alleged that the officers that secured the warrant for search of the computer fibbed. a small white lie. or so they say.

the officers allege that the defendant allowed them to search the computer, which he did. they allege that they stumbled on some movies which allowed them to tell a judge that they needed a more intrusive warrant, which was given. this more in depth search revealed the bulk of the evidence in the case.

but here's the alleged kicker, "Berman, Vaughn's lawyer, told Wanger on Thursday that his computer expert, David Penrod, examined Vaughn's computer and discovered that the four computer images were 'not accessible or viewable.' In essence, Prado lied to get the warrant, Berman said."

the sheriff's contend that, "contend that the detectives simply misstated their evidence to the judge," and that "It was neither reckless nor intentional," Gappa told the judge.

really? so they didn't actually find the evidence on the computer, they then told the judge that granted the warrant that they did and this isn't a flat out, intentional lie? unless reckless and intentional have some other legal meaning i'm not getting here, seems pretty reckless and intentional.

of course, the sheriff's experts contend that the images could be viewed. and, if the evidence is kept in, it seems pretty damaging. like, this guy claims he was still working on cases even though he was no longer a part of that unit. and that he allegedly downloaded kiddie porn 3 years after leaving the unit.

i realize that this is a very touchy issue. and, if he's guilty, i want him to face the appropriate punishment. but, our society is based largely on law. if the law decides to bend and alter for it's own benefit, we no longer have a just society. if the crime was committed, here's to hoping that the sheriffs aren't lying.