3rd Circuit Court Rules on 2257
 

Article from XBiz:

3rd Circuit Upholds 2257 Recordkeeping Law - XBIZ.com

Read the Opinion Here:

http://www.xbiz.com/docs/xbiz/news/1...2257_rhett.pdf

I'm reading through the opinion now. So far though it looks like one of the major results of this decision is that the court ruled that the warrantless searches during inspections violate the 4th amendment and thus are unconstitutional.

Big news here folks.

Justice has a name!

At a start that is good news. Lets see how it plays out and thanks for posting. Would be interesting to read more of what you think about it over all.

So few producers now.

Politics & the legal system need to focus on tubes, and their aggregates now.

Thanks for the info, much appeciated :)

Thanks; I'm planning on giving more of my thoughts once I'm able to get through all 64 pages. Stay tuned...

I am staying tuned here.

Thanks for going over this for us Corey!! :)

Ditto. Much appreciated!

Thanks for posting that Cory.

I have always maintained the 4th Amendment claim since the latest incarnation of the statute under the Bush Administration and AG Gonzales' watch. I am on the record on that one ;)

For Fourth Amendment purposes you need probable cause. A warrantless search is not a fishing expedition.

How interesting is this?

Well said!

I posted on this earlier today

In essence the law was upheld but the big fly in the ointment is that the records inspections will require a warrant, and as was noted here a warrant requires probable cause and as was not noted also provides an additional line of defense in that an improperly obtained warrant is grounds for exclusion of evidence obtained in the search
I have always said that 2257 was very worng in that it forces me to prove that I didn't commit a crime that never happened in the first place. In other words I am committing a crime by not being able to prove I didn't commit a crime that only happened when i couldn't prove I didn't commit it.

This decision fixes that and at least in my opinion is a correct decision.

The records inspection team was disbanded in 2008 (IIRC) but would likely be re-introduced in a republican presidency, so the timing is also good.

We must stop the man holding us down!

blind bitch?

Me too :thumbsup

This is good news. I am curious, though: Has anyone here who is not Donny ever had an official document request, at their location, in person? How did it play out?

How is this good news?

They could have thrown 2257 out completely...now THAT would have been good news.

So now they need a warrant to do an inspection...guess what...all a judge has to do is sign a piece of paper and there you go. Not like they will have any problem finding a judge who is anti-porn and would rather "error" on the side of caution to "protect the children".

This is NOT good news at all. :2 cents:

It will be interesting to see IF inspections are ever started again whether the govt uses improper notice compliance (ie using an email addy or PO Box) as the basis for probable cause and a means to get a warrant.

That alone could take down quite a few sites especially amateurs that work from home & don't have an official office address.

still waiting for xvideos inspection

Not really true yes a judge could sign a warrant but as I said if the warrant was obtained without probable cause thats a solid line of defense.

All in all this is the best outcome we could have hoped for...only the most optimistic and unrealistic people would have expected a total strike down of the law but the warrant requirement does put some fairness in it. At least they have to show cause that a particular girl in a particular video is under 18...remember warrants are very specific about what is being searched for...too broad and the warrant is kicked as a fishing expedition...its highly unlikely they can get a warrant to check every file on every girl on every video.

Very good news. Maybe just maybe I will come back and start shooting again for my own sites.
TOM

I think ''probable cause'' would be at to the statutes purpose -- the protection of minors being used in pornographic depictions.

Interestingly the Judge used some of the same case law I cited years ago at YNOT in finding his conclusions. As I remember you said this was not relevant. Seems the sitting judge found their relevance ..

Licensure was another point I made in our discussions.
Smart Judge :winkwink:
Now if this all isn't overturned en blanc like last time ...:upsidedow

As the Obama DOJ is without an AG, this should be a low priority and hopefully they will let this ruling stand without appeal -- this remains to be seen.

For me the effect is minimal; ACwebconnecting Group is not a US corporation. Its principal offices are in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. The statute is extraterritorial. We comply with Dutch Laws and retain documentation of performers' identity documents as proscribed by Dutch laws and protected by EU Directives on Data Privacy. You need a court order based on Dutch law for any disclosure.

bump :thumbsup

Barry - 2257 has two criminal elements, notice & record keeping. I think probable cause will be loosely interpretered to mean - a good faith belief that there is action in the furtherance of a crime. Failure to post the proper notice is already evidence of a crime. That's what I would be telling a judge if I were standing there asking for a warrant.

Not posting a proper notice might be enough for probable cause for the warrant. I don't know. I do agree that with a proper notice being posted the govt will need to show at least the potential for a minor individual whom might have been used in a pornographic performance.

Since there's only been 1 conviction under 2257 and no appeals of the actual enforcement of the statute everything it's all speculation.

I'm not convinced that there is anything good in this ruling at all.

It seems to me that the porn industry always gets shafted. So, why will this be any different?

How's this sound for "probable cause":

"Judge, look at this picture and tell me you don't think there's a chance that this girl is under 18 years old. She looks pretty young to me. Says she's 18, but don't you think there's a chance she's just 17 and 11 months? Why don't you give us a warrant so we can make sure."

I'm betting that holds up every day of the week. What judge wants to take the risk that they didn't allow a prosecutor to investigate a CP case? And what judge is going to throw that out for "not probable cause?"

I don't think this ruling will afford any protection whatsoever.

oh man. I hate to break it to ya but that sig is too big.

You might retort with mine being a little overweight itself?

Well see... mine has class to it.

Thank you - That was what I was saying!

This wont change a thing. The local "christian" Sherif will kick your door Down anyways.

Only if you are on his radar for some reason. That is true regardless of 2257. If the po-po puts a target on your back they will eventually find a reason to shut you down and/or lock you up. So... stay under the radar. :thumbsup

Sad but true!

So tube sites don't need to collect documentation? These just rely on end users and direct 2257 agents to them? Sounds like a ton of liability for them since sites like xtube.com don't even collect your information when you upload free videos.