Viewing child porn not necessarily possession, court rules

ALBANY, New York Tue May 8, 2012 8:52pm EDT

Related Topics

ALBANY, New York (Reuters) - Viewing child pornography on the Internet without taking further action such as printing or saving files does not necessarily constitute possession, New York's top court ruled on Tuesday.

The ruling by the Court of Appeals dismissed two of the 143 counts of possession of child pornography for which James Kent, a former professor at Marist College, was convicted in 2009.

When a Web page is viewed, a copy of the page is stored in a computer's "cache," which allows that page to load more quickly on future visits. The court found that while Kent had saved some of the files in question, he had only viewed others and was not aware of his computer's cache function.

To "possess" cached images, "the defendant's conduct must exceed mere viewing to encompass more affirmative acts of control such as printing, downloading or saving," Judge Carmen Ciparick wrote for the court.

Prosecutors must show, "at a minimum, that the defendant was aware of the presence of those items in the cache," Ciparick said.

In 2007, Kent asked information technology staff at Marist to look at his computer because it was not working properly. A college employee discovered numerous photos and videos of young children, some of them nude. The school turned the computer over to police.

A forensic investigator found more than 30,000 additional files in Kent's computer's cache.

In his defense, Kent said he had used the images as part of his research into child pornography. He further argued he had never been in possession of many of the files because they were not saved to his computer.

Kent was convicted after a non-jury trial of 143 counts of possession and sentenced to one to three years in prison.

Attorney Nathan Dershowitz, who represented Kent on appeal, said Tuesday the issue was a prime example of the inapplicability of laws that predate the digital age to cases involving the use of computers.

Kent's case was sent back to Dutchess County Court for resentencing.

(Editing by Daniel Trotta and Philip Barbara)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
indifferent wrote:
Perv: so wait, I can view as much child porn as I want just as long as I dont print or save it?

great trade off!!thanks new york

May 08, 2012 9:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
tiktin wrote:
This is insane. The government telling people what they can and cannot watch? That was the case in Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany, but has no place in a free country.

May 08, 2012 9:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
dddavid wrote:
Wish you had explained which cache ? Is it the browser cache or other ?
The laws as written don’t take into consideration that many sites automatically take you to some other site because they make referral money. In the case of child porn, I’ve never seen such a site, and I browse all over to see what is available to learn from. He should play the lottery, there is 1 in 1 million chance to run into a child porn site. And that takes 50 years of clicking.

May 09, 2012 8:13am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

Pictures