Current print subscribers can create a free account by clicking here
Otherwise, follow the link below to join.
To Our Valued Readers –
Visitors to our website will be limited to five stories per month unless they opt to subscribe. The five stories do not include our exclusive content written by our journalists.
For $6.99, less than 20 cents a day, digital subscribers will receive unlimited access to YourValley.net, including exclusive content from our newsroom and access to our Daily Independent e-edition.
Our commitment to balanced, fair reporting and local coverage provides insight and perspective not found anywhere else.
Your financial commitment will help to preserve the kind of honest journalism produced by our reporters and editors. We trust you agree that independent journalism is an essential component of our democracy. Please click here to subscribe.
PHOENIX — People who store kiddie porn in the "cloud'' can't claim an illegal search when the operator of the remote storage site turn them in.
That's the conclusion of the Arizona Court of Appeals in rejected a bid by a Tucson man to toss his criminal conviction and his 170-year prison sentence.
The case dates to 2016 when Google discovered 19 images of child pornography at the Google+ Photos account of Edgar Fristoe. It forwarded the findings to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
That information eventually found its was to a Tucson police detective who used the info, including Mr. Fristoe's phone number, email address and IP address, to obtain a search warrant for his home and cell phone. That led to several images on the phone.
A trial judge rejected Fristoe's bid to suppress the evidence as anything gathered was based on a warrantless search. That led to a three-day bench trial, a finding of guilt and 10 terms of 17 years each, to be serve consecutively.
On appeal, Mr. Fristoe does not dispute the Fourth Amendment is a ban on warrantless searches by the government and that Google is a private company.
But he argued that the court should consider Google to be a "government agent'' based on what he said is the government's knowledge "of and acquiescence in Google's intrusion into user's private files.'' And he said Google acted with the intent of assisting law enforcement.
Appellate Judge Karl Eppich, writing for the unanimous court, said those arguments hold no water.
He pointed out Mr. Fristoe never alleged that law enforcement asked Google to search his particular account, or even knew that Google was going to do that.
Judge Eppich acknowledged federal law does require third parties, such as Google, to report child pornography it finds to NCMEC. But nothing in that law requires such a search.
The judge also said Mr. Fristoe never proved Google's search was motivated to assist law enforcement rather than simply "protect its private business interests.'' That was backed up by a declaration from a Google employee that the company has "a strong business interest'' in ensuring its products are "free of illegal content'' that it monitors its platform both to protect its public image and to retain and attract customers.
"Here, Google, acting of its own accord, was the first to search Fristoe's Google+ Photos and discover the pornographic images in question,'' Judge Eppich wrote. "Because these invasions of Fristoe's claimed expectation of privacy were committed by a private party and not through state action, they did not violate the Fourth Amendment.''
By 
