Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
The Courts The Internet

Dotcom Search Warrants Ruled Illegal 316

New submitter StueyNZ writes "Justice Helen Winkelmann of New Zealand's High Court (non-appellate court) has ruled that the search warrants used to search and seize property from Kim Dotcom's Coatsville residence did not properly describe the offenses under which the search was being made. In particular, warrants did not make it clear that the breach of copyright law and money laundering offenses were U.S. federal offenses rather than NZ offenses. Therefore the search and seizure was illegal. I hope this means Mr. Dotcom gets his security footage back, which should shed some light on how many tourists from the FBI were present at the NZ police raid, and how many firearms those tourists were waving around as they joined in."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dotcom Search Warrants Ruled Illegal

Comments Filter:
  • Re:At Least... (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28, 2012 @08:58AM (#40477487)

    ...they didn't bring SWAT along, bust down her door and shoot her dog (and possible her).

    Kim Dotcom is a guy.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28, 2012 @09:02AM (#40477513)

  • by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @09:25AM (#40477689)
    Here in the UK, you are despised for an extradition agreement which allows you to successfully have someone sent over for prosecution who has committed no crime under UK law and never even entered the US. America has long been seen as the global champion of freedom and equality, but the government over the last few administrations has been striving to correct this.
  • by Shagg ( 99693 ) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @09:46AM (#40477875)

    You're assuming they didn't "do it properly". I don't mean in the sense of following proper procedure, but in the sense of achieving their real goals. Maybe they didn't really care whether or not it got thrown out of court, but wanted to "throw their weight around" in order to ruin his business and intimidate others into shutting down out of fear that they would be next. If that was their goal, then it worked out perfectly.

  • by Stickerboy ( 61554 ) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @10:00AM (#40478009) Homepage

    The fun part is how you can do something overseas that's completely legal in the country you did it in, but then get arrested when you return to the US if it's a crime in the US. This is often used when citizens go overseas, have sex with young girls who are of legal age in their country but under age by US law, then arrested when they return to the US.

    I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing the downside of this.

    Did you ever shoplift as a child or teen? How would you feel about having your right hand cut off upon entering an islamic country? What if you had a friend who lived in a western country but had dual citizenship by birth?

    Or how about this: Have you ever attended a rally or written a letter of complaint to an official? How would you feel about being jailed as a subversive if you went on holiday to China?

    If you don't understand the reason for jurisdiction, you really shouldn't be commenting. Laws vary so widely that you're bound to be a criminal somewhere no matter how you behave. Without some limits and barriers everyone who ever went overseas would risk jail.

    That's seriously funny, coming from you. Apparently you don't understand the difference between being a US citizen and having Chinese laws apply to you while acting in the US and being a US citizen and having US laws apply to you while in another country. Or being a US citizen and having Sharia apply to you for acts done in the US, versus being a US citizen and being arrested for stolen property that you obtained overseas.

    Being outside of the US geographically does not give you carte blanche to do whatever the fuck you want, just because you happen to be in a country that you can bribe the local official to say its ok. Err, I mean, where the law says its ok. On the flipside, being a US citizen traveling outside the US affords you certain protections and privileges (up to a point).

    Apparently some creepy old white guy with mod points is coming after me! That's OK, bring it on! If you can't win an argument, burn your mod points...

  • Re:At Least... (Score:4, Informative)

    by wild_quinine ( 998562 ) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @10:27AM (#40478329) Homepage

    He was refering to a recent well-known incident in which a SWAT team was sent to arrest a suspected drug dealer...

    And here is the (really quite horrifying) video of that incident: []

    The point at which the man realises his dog has been shot is heartbreaking.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28, 2012 @10:43AM (#40478517)

    You have no idea what you're talking about. The reason Americans are prosecuted for sex tourism is because there is a specific law on the books making not the act itself, but the planning and conceiving of it illegal making it much easier to convict in the US because you can show evidence of wire transfers, phone calls, internet searches and emails, etc...

    This law was written because US jurisdiction is not universal and the government was having a very hard time convicting sex tourists in the US because they could not show that the act actually happened, and/or they could not show that there was any component to the crime of statutory rape inside the United States.

    Having a beer over there at 18 is not legally illegal and you could not be convicted of it. Don't spew random garbage.

  • Re:Impressive... (Score:4, Informative)

    by AngryDeuce ( 2205124 ) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @11:14AM (#40478831)

    Can't have it both ways because DMCA safe harbor limits the ability of a rights holder to recover damages.

    No it doesn't. It limits the ability of a rights holder to recover damages unless they can prove the infringement was deliberate on the part of the site's owners. I know it's just such a pain in the ass when they have to back up their claims, but that's kinda the basis of our entire fucking legal system, the concept of innocence until guilt is proven.

    The burden of defending IP should always lie with the IP holders. It's up to Joe Blow to defend his copyrights in court, why should a MAFIAA organization get the government to pick up the tab for their investigations when Joe Blow doesn't get similar consideration?

    Oh, right. We're back to that "Corporations are not only people, but they're super people with more rights then real people" thing...

  • by C_amiga_fan ( 1960858 ) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @11:57AM (#40479283)

    I'm sure the U.S. authorities are not thinking anything, but instead picking-up the phone and telling Universal, "We followed your orders. Mission accomplished." Why Universal? Those are the guys that demanded Youtube remove the Megaupload Song in december. They even filed a lawsuit, which they lost.

    Then two weeks later the FBI raids and shutsdown megaupload. Coincidence? I don't think so. Pretty obvious Universal lost their case to remove the Megaupload Song, then called their buddies in D.C. and asked them to remove the company. Ultimately the U.S. government serves the corporations that donate money to its reelection campaigns.

  • by BronsCon ( 927697 ) <> on Thursday June 28, 2012 @01:07PM (#40480615) Journal
    For Europe or Canada, that's body fat, for Mexico, that's cocaine and marijuan.

Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success. -- Christopher Lascl