Man Caught With Child Porn By Computer Repair Service

We live in a new world where the ends justify the means.

No one wants to let a Child Pornographer go, but we are loosing the freedoms that we all took for granted.

I'm glad they found out what the guy had on his computers. How many kids get molested because of sicko's looking at this.Bunch of weird's. I sure there are alot more out there. Reading this.

the trick here is to find the source, were are this films made? if they come from europe,our police has to contact interpool,they will contact every countries law inforcement agency,if you don't cut off the head,the body will live on to produce more of these sick flicks,[pictures].

What are you reading Gayle?

When you turn a computer in for service there is a disclaimer on the service ticket. I think it's great that this guy was just not smart enough to read the service ticket. If the person is proven guilty without a doubt they shouldn't even be able to get off on a technicality.

Technically, a warrant may not be necessary, as the repairperson acted as a witness to a crime and alerted the police.

Looking at BOTH sides to this issue there's SEVERE constitutional rights that were violated.
(1). It is NOT illegal to have Child Pornography and therefore the Janitor IS protected by 1st Amendment Rights under Free Speech/Free Press.
(2). Although I do NOT condone anyone possessing Child Porn "having" the pictures on his computer does NOT make him a criminal. Sick? Absolutley! BUT...he's ONLY GUILTY IF he "acts out" on any girls...he's within his right to HAVE the pictures.
(3). The PC Tech. has no police authority to enforce such actions. The Computer Store can be sued for invasion of privacy and violations of 1st amendment rights under freedom of press AND damages causing false arrest.
(4). Sorry Law Enforcement...you lose on this one also.
(5). Unless the Customer signed a Waiver clearly stating he could be prosecuted if there was any CHILD PORN on his computer THEN he would be legally charged with the crime of possession of these photos. The PC Tech's job was to transfer the files....not "inspect" or "play police officer".

If you're not breaking the law you don't have to worry about your freedom being taken.

I am all for putting the pervs away and I am also a stickler for the protection of anyones
constitutional rights and the enforcement of the letter of the law. This is not the first time that a conflict between those two beliefs has put me at odds with myself.
However, Mr. O'brien is mistaken as to the issue of privacy as it pertains to this case. He states, "We'd expect some semblance of privacy when having our PCs serviced." Really? Why? Mr. O'Brien might expect privacy under these circumstances but he would be disappointed.
First of all, let's take a look at the
"expectation of privacy" under these specific
circumstances. The perv certainly knew that his sicko collection was on the computer and still HE went ahead and sent in his computer all by himself. It was not hacked into or siezed by law enforcement officials from his car, residence or other location protected by the Sixth Amendment which protects us from, among other things, "unreasonable search and seizure". By sending the computer in with the understanding that there would be at least one, if not more, person working on it, the scumbag freak thus explicitly and implicitly gave up ANY expectation of privacy if he had had one.
Secondly, Mr. O'brien states that, " ... we are [--] concerned and curious about the warrantless search and seizure performed." No warrant was necessary and for several reasons. This was not a "warrantless search and seizure", the incriminating evidence was not discovered by police but found by a pimply-faced, social shut-in, who's mother still picks out his clothes and who was attempting to fix the computer. Any "reasonable person" would conclude that in order to fix the computer the technician(s) would, of necessity, have to view some or all of the data on it in order to diagnose the problem as to why it didn't operate properly and then, presumably, go on to repair the damage found.
The third reason why a warrant wasn't and isn't necessary under these circumstances is that neither the computer repair business, its owners, its management or its employees were acting in ANY way as agents of any law enforcement entity. Had the company and/or its people been part of a "sting operation" or "dragnet" to capture computer pervs then, yes, a warrant would probably have been necessary for them to even turn on the suspect computer. Under this most recently described set of circumstances, absent a warrant, any and all evidence seized from freak-o boys' computer would be "fruit of the poisonous tree" and inadmissable.
However, that is NOT the set of circumstances that led to the identification and (hopeful) capture of this, particular, sicko-freak, sleazoid. In THIS CASE, no warrant was EVER necessary especially since no law enforcement group was involved with or, indeed, even aware of the initial discovery and gathering of the evidence in question. In fact, law enforcement officials knew nothing of Mr. Robert Zueldorf, aka pervo scum, until the geeks, nerds et al gave up the evidence.
Finally, as Mr. O'Brien states, "It's still up to law enforcement officials to go through all the necessary, legal procedures when going after baddies." which they properly did as soon as they were apprised that the evidence and the associated crimes existed.
I am all for holding law enforcement and its attendant agencies to the highest possible standard at all times when they are performing their duties. However, I do not want to see perpetrators go free while law enforcement officials are paralized by red tape and endless minutia, forced to play constitutional word games and constantly second guess themselves in vain attempts to protect themselves from false allegations, law suits and witch hunts that ultimately ruin careers and lives but yield no hint of wrong-doing on the part of the officer(s)in question.
I do not want to see law enforcement officers spend most of their time covering their asses (as opposed to actually going out to "protect and serve") as stated above in order to avoid offending the politically correct sensibilities of middle and upper class liberals with guilty consciences who burn with need to be seen as in touch, relevant and "street" as they are photographed with Michael Moore, Spike, the Al's Gore and Sharpton, Denzel, Bono and Brad and Angelina.

It goes without saying that people who look at child porn are total scumbags, but if you are stupid enough to store that sh*t on your computer and then bring it to a repair shop, then you deserve to go to prison just for being a retard.

One has to wonder of the Technician.
Did this tech and the customer have previous dealings with one another. Was the tech pissed off at the customer.
Did the tech actually accidentally come across the porn or did he maybe help it get there?
Lots of questions to ask.

On the other hand, customer could simply be a pervert. There are, after all, millions of them in the USA from pervs who live in the gutter world all the way up to top national leaders, corporate leaders, Church leaders ect...

In fact, IMO, there are more perverts in the USA than there are normal people or is it the case that some perversion is now considered normal? They say stretching a sphincter for intimate reasons is normal.
Have we redefined what normal is?

The real question is, is sphincter stretching a sport?

To SW who says "If you're not breaking the law you don't have to worry about your freedom being taken.." HOW IGNORANT ARE YOU??? Have you NEVER read history and seen how many INNOCENT people have had their freedom taken? If you are STUPID enough to believe that, you're probably a right wingnut Republican and, by definition, born without a brain. Ask Holocaust survivors if they were breaking the law. Ask the Japanese-Americans who the U.S. shipped to internment camps if they were breaking the law. Ask one of the thousands of innocent people that the Innocence Project has freed by DNA evidence (and who prosecutors often wanted to keep EVEN after they'd been proven innocent) if THEY were breaking the law. And the Law is not always a good law. It is this sort of infantile thinking that has a Chimp in the White House using the Constitution for toilet paper. As to the child porn and the other idiot that said possessing it was not illegal. ARE YOU REALLY THAT IGNORANT??? OF COURSE it is illegal and well it should be. As for the tech not having police authority OF COURSE he did the right thing. He MUST look at the data on the machine to do many things for PC repair. Under the law, anyone observing the physical or sexual abuse of children is REQUIRED BY LAW to report it. If the tech hadn't, he would have been guilty as an "accessory after the fact" if this guy was ever busted. And, excuse me while I vomit, but WHAT kind of sick, warped puppy looks at ANYTHING to do with 1 year old babies and sexual activity? This guy needs to spend the rest of his natural life in prison. Whether he molests children or not is immaterial. By purchasing this stuff or exchanging it he is materially contributing to the severe abuse of children. The prevalence of ignorance on these blogs amazes and disgusts me. It simply goes to show that you need not have a brain to use a computer or be online...or comment in a blog.

SW says:
("If you're not breaking the law you don't have to worry about your freedom being taken.")

Really...? Drive through Dawsonville Ga. and office T. pulls you over for no reason, then see what happens to you....he will search your car and your own person...of course he will ask you first for 'permission'.....

Bill, It is ILLEGEL in the USA! I suggest you do your research as it is not an excuse that you didn't know!

I hope when they find this bottom feeder they hang him up by his private parts and turn big hungary Pit Bulls loose in the room with him..... He deserves NO MERCY.

Hypothetical situation - Computer repairman does not like this guy for this reason or that. Spins disc with pictures and puts them on clients PC - then calls cops. Since the computer was not in the guys possesion, how can anyone be sure it wasn't tampered with?

Mr.Dave?

imagine sitting on the jury, deciding this mans fate. could you be totally sure that the computer repairman didnt tamper with the computer? and if he is in the one percent of people who are innocent when he seems totally guilty, then he spends most of the rest of his natural life in jail and has to register as a preditory sexual offender wherever he goes, so even when and if he gets out he is finished as a normal human being and his time in the can would be a nightmare being the lowest member of the prison community. however if he is guilty and gets let out because there is the possibility that the repair tech may have tampered with his computer, and acts out his fantasy's on a minor, what a nightmare. its a tough one and i dont know what i would do, do you?

COPS AND REPAIRMAN JUMPED THE GUN,VERY PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE LIKE THAT SHOULD WORK AT THE LANDFILLS.ALMOST ALL OF THEM RODE THE SHORT BUS.I'M A FARMER FROM NC AND CAN DO BETTER THAN THAT.HE.HE.HE..........................

John, you moron, the poster meant that FOR THE MOST PART if you obey the law in todays society you will be alright. Only a wingnut like you would take that to be a claim that no innocent person in the history of the entire universe has been in jail. It is posters like you that bring intellectual discourse down with all your name calling and bold type crassness.
As for the controversy, they of course need to report anything like this they see. Perhaps to avoid the possibility that porn could be loaded onto an innocent persons computer all work on the computers could be monitored by either supervisors or electronically.