So… Someone is going to jail for that, right?
Right?
Settled for $610,000…so no. I feel like, given that minors were involved, the settlement should have been on top of criminal charges.
deleted by creator
Always.
And also didn’t go to any of the victims
Says at the bottom, 175k to the first victim to open a case, 10k to the second case and… 475k to the lawyers.
Well, I stand corrected… But Jesus those lawyer fees…
I hate this country.
dont hate your country, hate lawyers.
here’s a quick one: Q: what do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of a river? A: A good start.
and one more for fun
Q: How do you keep a lawyer from drowning? A: Take your foot off their throat
Usually when you hear about a settlement (and not a plea deal) that means this was a civil case and not a criminal one. A civil case doesn’t weigh in on whether or not criminal charges will be brought.
If enough people push the Attorney General of that state to pursue charges they still could (Edit: it’s been 14 years and the Statute of Limitations is 5 years for wiretapping which I think is the highest possible charge). But there is a higher standard for evidence in criminal trials. Not to mention the defense’s argument would likely be that schools have the right to wiretap students’ issued laptops, so the AG probably doesn’t want this to go to court and end up enshrining such a right when it currently holds civil liability due to the civil case succeeding.
Well if they recorded and student jerking it then the school made cp and. I doubt theor is a limitation on that.
wiretapping which I think is the highest possible charge
Wouldn’t the highest charge be all that child pornography they intentionally created?
Is there any evidence of it? The Wikipedia page says “which may include unclothed or partially clothed photos” but doesn’t necessarily mean there is any.
If you run always-on cameras in thousands of teenage bedrooms, you will get child porn.
Great answer
Why tf are your AGs allowed to just ignore crimes? Aren’t there laws to prevent selective enforcement like this?
In our court system, precedent (an existing ruling by a higher court on a similar case) often weighs heavily in future court cases. IIRC the point of this doctrine is fairness and legitimacy by consistency of rulings.
Its weaknesses, however, include the ability to set a bad precedent. For this reason, our AGs sometimes ignore potential cases if they’re not sure they can win.
In other words, this case might not have been quite the slam dunk the headline would suggest.
It’s worth reading the entire article, it just gets worse and worse.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), U.S. Attorney’s Office, and Montgomery County District Attorney all initiated criminal investigations of the matter, which they combined and then closed because they did not find evidence “that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone involved had criminal intent”.
That’s not even close to the worst thing in the article, but GG justice system. I’ll remember this one day when I’m in court. “Well I didn’t have criminal intent.”
That’s a defense now?? One that removes the need to even have a trial at all??
The article actually goes easy on them. The first plaintiff sued because the student was brought into the principal’s office and told they were being suspended for drug use, and as evidence showed a photo of them eating something in their room. It turned out to be Mike and Ike’s candy. The family was so upset they were spying on the child in their bedroom that it escalated to an investigation and then the scandal unfolded.
The school tried to backpedal and claim that the app takes photos on a timer and they had no idea, and this was proven to be a lie in court when they showed the IT training video explaining how proud they were of the webcam snooping feature.
It gets even worse: During the investigation, it was discovered that at least one person had copied videos and photos onto an external hard drive and taken them. The investigation never discovered who it was, or how many people had made copies; They just knew that files had been copied to at least one external storage drive.
The implication being that all of the teenage girls had their laptops open in their bedrooms, and at least one random employee had copies of their photos and videos.
The implication being that all of the teenage girls had their laptops open in their bedrooms, and at least one random employee had copies of their photos and videos.
Sure but they couldn’t prove criminal intent so it’s ok.
/s
Its been a defence for several hundred years, in fact! Showing intent is one of the three things you need to establish in every criminal case for it to be considered valid. Fuck the cops for dropping this case though, how in hell was there no intent to commit a crime here wtf.
Weird, I’ve literally always heard “ignorance of the law is no excuse to break the law”, which seems to imply criminal intent doesn’t matter. Only that the action that was take was illegal.
There are strict liability crimes. Like if you admit to shooting someone but maintain it was an accident. You won’t get a murder charge, (or murder 1 depending on state) but you are going to get time in prison.
It’s not intent to break the law, it’s intent to do what you did. If I walk out of a store with a can of tuna I didn’t pay for, that’s shoplifting, right? Well, not necessarily.
If I walk into a store, pick it up off the shelf, hide it in my jacket, and dart for the exit, probably.
If my toddler slipped it into my jacket pocket, and I didn’t notice, probably not.
If I put it in my jacket pocket because my toddler started to run away, I forgot about it, and paid for a cart of groceries… Maybe? But unlikely to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t an accident.
