The case referred to is: State v. Rivas, 121 Ohio St.3d 469, 2009-Ohio-1354. Nella causa. 2007-1611. Decided March 31, 2009. Majority opinion written by Justice Terrence O’Donnell.

By Ohio Supreme Court Justice Paul Pfeifer

Gennaio 3, 2005, Detective Alonzo Wilson, a member of the Xenia Police Division’s Internet Child-Protection Unit, logged onto an Internet chat service posing as a 14-year-old female named Molly. A man named Jose Rivas – using the screen name JRivas123 – contacted “Molly” asking for her age, genere, and photograph.

The two carried on an online conversation, and eventually Wilson e-mailed Rivas a teenage photo of a Xenia police detective. Rivas e-mailed Molly an explicit photo which, ha affermato, was of him. He then propositioned her and offered her $200 to engage in sexual activity with him. Rivas eventually arranged to meet Molly at a hotel. After police observed Rivas checking in, Wilson arrested him.

Prior to trial, Rivas filed a motion to preserve the state’s electronic evidence and he sought a mirror image of the hard drive of the state’s computer used by Wilson to communicate with him. The trial court ordered the state to allow Rivas to inspect the computer, but the prosecution refused to allow the defense to retrieve a mirror image of the hard drive, citing “security reasons.” The prosecution did provide a transcript of the conversations and a compact disc containing an electronic copy of the online communications.

Rivas then filed a motion to suppress the computer-generated evidence and to compel the state to provide a mirror image of the computer hard drive. But the trial court denied the motion, concluding that Criminal Rule 16 – one of the rules that govern the proceedings of a trial – did not require the state to produce an exact copy of its computer hard drive “in the absence of allegations and some evidence that what has been provided is not accurate.”

[continua] Judge James Kimblers Blog: Computer Evidence.