;Date      11 Nov 92 12:30:35
From:      Uucp@1:125/555
To:        Tomj@1:125/111
Subject:   Re: ECPA suit settled (for $)
Options:   kill-sent private 
;Status:   (read 4 times)
;INTL 1:125/111 1:125/555

From  kumr!cup.portal.com!hkhenson
From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com
To:   tomj@fidosw.fidonet.org
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 12:09:02 PST

Subject: Email privacy case settled                                        

The long running Alcor/email case against the County and City of Riverside, 
CA was settled out of court in April of this year.  The announcement was 
delayed until all parties had signed off, and the check (for $30k) had 
cleared the bank :-). 

The Alcor Life Extension Foundation (a non-profit cryonics organization 
--alcor@cup.portal.com) ran a BBS for members and prospective members from 
early 1987 through January 12, 1988.  On that day, the BBS computer was 
removed under a warrant to take the computer (but no mention of any 
contained email) in connection with the investigation into the death of 
83-year-old Dora Kent.  (Mrs. Kent was placed into cryonic suspension by 
Alcor in December of 1987.   During and following the investigation, Alcor 
staff members were publicly accused by county officials of murder, theft, 
and building code violations.  No charges were ever filed and the 
investigation was officially closed three years later.) 

In December of 1988 Keith Henson filed a civil suit to force an 
investigation of the apparent violations of the Electronic Communication 
Privacy Act by the FBI, but the case was dismissed by the now convicted 
Judge Aguilar. 

In early 1990, just before the statute of limitations ran out, Henson and 
14 others (of the roughly 50 people who had email on the system) filed a 
civil action against a number of officials and the County and City of 
Riverside, CA under Section 2707 of the Electronic Communication Privacy 
Act.  

Some time after the case was filed, the Electronic Frontier Foundation came 
into existence in response to law enforcement abuses involving a wide 
spectrum of the online community.  EFF considered this case an important 
one, and helped the plaintiffs in the case by locating pro bono legal help.  
While the case was being transferred, the County and City offered a 
settlement which was close to the maximum damages which could have been 
obtained at trial.  Although no precedent was set because the case did not 
go to trial, considerable legal research has been done, and one judgment 
issued in response to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  The legal filings 
and the responses they generated from the law firm representing the 
County/City and officials are available by email from mnemonic@eff.org or 
(with delay) from hkhenson@cup.portal.com.  (They are also posted on 
Portal.) 
 
The Plaintiffs were represented by Christopher Ashworth of Garfield, 
Tepper, Ashworth and Epstein in Los Angeles (408-277-1981).  A summary of 
the settlement agreement is attached. 


SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

    This agreement is made and entered into in Riverside, California, 
this _____ day of ______ by and between [long list of defendants and 
plaintiffs]

I.

FACTUAL RECITALS

    1.  This Agreement is executed with reference to the following facts 
for purpose of this Agreement only. 

    2.  On January 12, 1998, some of the Defendants, pursuant to a search 
warrant, entered into the premises of Alcor Life Extension Foundation in 
Riverside, California. 

    3.  Upon entry into the property, some of the Defendants seized various 
items, including electronic media containing E-mail owned by the 
plaintiffs. 

    4.  On or about January 11, 1990, plaintiffs commenced civil action No. 
SAC 90-021js in the United States District Court, Santa Ana ("the Action"), 
against the defendants for injuries and damages allegedly suffered as a 
result of the defendants' seizure of plaintiff's E-mail. 

    5   It is now the desire and intention of plaintiffs, on the one part, 
and defendants on the other part, to settle, compromise, and resolve all 
the differences, disagreements, and disputes, which exist and may exist, 
including those which are the subject matter of, referred to, related to, 
or mentioned in the Action.  Pursuant to this desire, and in consideration 
of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows. 

II  CONSIDERATION

    6.  Upon the execution of this Agreement, defendants County of 
Riverside shall pay to plaintiffs, by check, the total sum of Thirty 
Thousand Dollars ($30,000), inclusive of attorney fees and cost. 

    7.  [The rest of this is boilerplate, except that they wanted 
confidentiality of the agreement, to which we would not agree.] 

;Date      11 Nov 92 12:30:21
From:      Uucp@1:125/555
To:        Tomj@1:125/111
Subject:   Re: ECPA suit filed against city/county
Options:   kill-sent private 
;Status:   (read 4 times)
;INTL 1:125/111 1:125/555

From  kumr!cup.portal.com!hkhenson
From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com
To:   tomj@fidosw.fidonet.org
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 12:06:36 PST

From _The Press-Enterprise_ Saturday, Feb 24, 1990 
 
(Posted by Alcor member Keith Henson without permission) 
 
ALCOR FILES SUIT OVER ELECTRONIC MAIL SEIZURE 
 
By David Bloom, The Press-Enterprise 
 
   Another legal battle has erupted between Alcor Life Extension 
Foundation  and the law, this time with a federal lawsuit filed by 
Alcor over the seizure more than two years ago of computerized 
"electronic mail" during a search of the group`s Riverside 
headquarters. 
 
   Alcor members pay up to $100,000 for the privilege of have their 
bodies put in cryonic suspension, frozen at temperatures hundreds of 
degrees below zero, after their death.  The members hope developing 
medical technology will one day enable the to be revived and cured. 
 
  The group ran afoul of local law enforcement officials, however, 
after the  cryonic suspension of the head of Dora Kent in December 
1987. 
 
   The Riverside County coroner's Office accused Alcor members of 
hastening along Kent's death with a lethal dose of barbiturates in 
preparation for freezing.  The group has denied the accusation, saying 
the provided only "care and comfort" to the 83 year-old Kent in her 
last two days. 
 
   Law enforcement officers raided the Alcor headquarters on 
Riverside's southwest edge in January 1988, searching for computer 
equipment, software and related material, and for Kent's body parts, 
and any illegal drugs. 
 
   They found the equipment, but not Kent, whose head had been 
secreted away, or any illegal drugs. 
 
   The most recent lawsuit was filed last month in U.S. District court 
in Los Angeles.  It accuses a dozen Riverside City and County law 
enforcement officials of violating the Electronic Communication 
Privacy Act of 1986. 
 
   The suit says police illegally seized the electronic mail of 14 
Alcor members when it seized the computer equipment.  A copy of the 
search warrant included as an exhibit in the suit does not mention 
electronic mail. 

   The suit asked for at least $10,000 for each of the alcor member who 
filed the suit.  Most to the same members filed a claim against the 
city 11 months ago, but the city allowed the claim to expire without 
response after 45 days, said  attorney John Porter, who is 
representing the city and two policemen named in  the suit. 
 
   "This lawsuit was filed in federal court," Porter said.  "It 
should have been filed the Twilight Zone." 
 
    The attorney for Alcor could not be reach for comment late 
    yesterday. 
 

;Date      11 Nov 92 12:30:23
From:      Uucp@1:125/555
To:        Tomj@1:125/111
Subject:   Re: ECPA suit-court filing
Options:   kill-sent private 
;Status:   (read 5 times)
;INTL 1:125/111 1:125/555

From  kumr!cup.portal.com!hkhenson
From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com
To:   tomj@fidosw.fidonet.org
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 12:07:06 PST


CHRISTOPHER ASHWORTH, A Member of 
GARFIELD, TEPPER, ASHWORTH & EPSTEIN
1925 Century Part East, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, California  90067
Telephone: (213) 277-1981

Attorneys For Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case NO. SA CV90-021 JSL (RwRx)

COMPLAINT FOR 
DECLARATORY RELIEF
AND DAMAGES
(Electronic 
Communications Privacy
Act of 1986;
18 U.S.C. Section 2701,
et seq.)


H. KEITH HENSON, HUGH L. HIXON,
JR., THOMAS K. DONALDSON, NAOMI
REYNOLDS, ROGER GREGORY, MICHAEL G.
FEDEROWITCZ, STEVEN B. HARRIS,
BRIAN WOWK, ERIC GEISLINGER,
CATH WOOF, BILLY H. SEIDEL,
ALLEN J. LOPP, LEE CORBIN
RALPH MERKEL, AND KEITH LOFTSTROM
   
                    Plaintiffs,

     v.

RAYMOND CARRILLO, SCOTT HILL,
DAN CUPIDO, ALAN KUNZMAN, ROWE
WORTHINGTON, RICHARD BOGAN,
REAGAN SCHMALZ, GROVER TRASK, II,
ROBERT SPITZER, LINFORD L. 
RICHARDSON, GUY PORTILLO,
individuals, and the COUNTY OF 
RIVERSIDE, a subdivision of the
State of CAlifornia, And the CITY
OF RIVERSIDE, a municipal entity,
and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive,
               Defendants.

          Plaintiffs complain of defendants as follows:
                       JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATION

          1.   This case arises under an Act of Congress, namely
the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986; U.S.C. Section
2701, et Seq., and in particular, the civil enforcement
Provisions thereof, 18 U.S.C. Section 2707.   Venue is proper in this
Court in that all of the defendants reside in this district.

                   COMMON ALLEGATIONS

           2.    Plaintiffs are all individuals residing in 
various point and places in the United States.  [except Brian
Wowk who resides in Canada.]
          3.   Defendants Carillo, Hill, Cupido, Kuntzman,
Worthington, Bogan, Schmalz, Trask, Spitzer, Hinman and Mosley
are all employees of defendant County of Riverside, and at all
times material, were acting within the course and scope of their 
employment.  Defendants Richardson and Portillo are all 
employees of defendant City of Riverside and at all times
material, were acting within the course and scope of their
employment.  Defendant County of Riverside ["county'] is a
political subdivision of the State of California.  Defendant
City of Riverside ["city'] is a municipal entity located within
California.
          Defendants Carillo, Hill, Cupido, Kuntzman,
Worthington, Bogan, and Schmalz are employed by defendant County
in the Office of the Riverside County Coroner.  Defendants
Trask, Spitzer, Hinman and Mosley are employed by the said
county in the office of the District Attorney,  Defendants
Richardson and Portillo are employed by defendant City in the
Riverside Police Department.

-------------------

          4.   All of the events complained of herein occurred
within two years of the date of filing of the complaint.
               At all times material, Alcor Life Extension
Foundation, a non-Profit corporation with its principal place of
business in Riverside County, maintained facilities at its place
of business whose purpose was to (in part) facilitate the 
sending and receipt of electronic mail ["E-mail"] via computer-
driven modems and which electronic mail facility was utilized by
the plaintiffs, and each of them.  The Alcor Facility is remote in
geographical location from all plaintiffs.
          5.   At all times material, each plaintiff had one or
more E-mail messages abiding on electron or magnetic medial at
the Alcor facility.  Prior to [actually on] January 12, 1988, defendants 
procured from the Riverside Superior Court a search warrant
which authorized, in general, a search of the facilities of
Alcor.  A true and correct copy of that search warrant is 
attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A".  The search warrant does
not purport to reach, nor was it intended to reach, any of the
E-mail of plaintiffs.
          6.   On January 12, 1988, defendant entered upon the
Alcor premisses and removed many things therefrom including the
electronic media containing plaintiffs' E-mail.
          7.   Contemporaneously with the seizure of the 
electronic media containing plaintiffs' E-mail, defendants were
explicitly informed that they were seizing plaintiffs' E-mail
which was not described either generally or specifically in the
warrant hereinabove referred to.

--------------

          8.   No notice was given to any plaintiff by any
defendant of the impending seizure of their E-mail.
          9.   In the process of procuring the warrant, neither
the defendants nor anyone else made any showing that there
was reason to believe that the contents of any of plaintiffs' E-
mail was relevant to any law enforcement inquiry.
          10.   Subsequent to the execution of the warrant on
January 12, 1988, no notice was given to any plaintiff by any
government entity, including the defendants, nor any
defendant herein, at any time, regarding the defendants 
acquisition and retention of plaintiffs' E-mail.
          11.   The court issuing the warrant in respect of the
Alcor facility did not, prior to the issuance of the warrant nor
at any other time, determine that notice to plaintiffs
compromised any legitimate investigation within the meaning of 18
U.S.C.  section 2705(a)(2).
          12.   Not withstanding that defendant and each of them
were informed that they had taken, along with materials
describe in the warrant, E-mall belonging to plaintiffs, said
defendants knowingly and willfully (a) continued to access the
electronic and magnetic media containing plaintiffs' E-mail and
(b) continued to deny access to plaintiffs to such E-mail for
many months although a demand was made for the return of the
said E-mail.  Defendants' wrongful access to and retention of
plaintiffs' E-mail was intentional within the meaning of 18
U.S.C. section 2707.

--------------

          13.   Proximately caused by the unprivileged actions of
the defendants hereinbefore described, each plaintiff has
suffered damage in an amount to be proved at trial, but in no
event less than $10,000 each.
          WHEREFORE plaintiffs pray:
        1.   For damages according to proof;
        2.   For cost of suit;
        3.   For Attorneys' fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 2707(b)(3);  and
        4.   For such other and further relief as is required
in the circumstances.

Date:  January 11, 1990


GARFIELD, TEPPER, ASHWORTH, AND EPSTEIN
A Professional Corporation

(signed)
CHRISTOPHER ASHWORTH
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

--------------

Exhibit "A"

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SEARCH WARRANT

To any Sheriff, Police Officer, Marshal or Peace Officer 
in the County of Riverside.

Proof, by sworn statement, having been made this day
to me by Alan Kunzman and it appearing that there is 
probable cause to believe that at the place and on the 
persons and in the vehicle(s) set forth herein there
is now being concealed property which is:

____  stolen or embezzled property
__x__ property and things used to commit a felony
__x__ property possessed (or being concealed by another) 
           with intent to commit a public offense
__x__ property tending to show a felony was committed;
          YOU ARE THEREFORE COMMANDED TO SEARCH :  the 
          premises located at

   [description of Alcor address at 12327 Doherty St.]

including all rooms attics, basements, storage areas, and 
other parts therein, garages, grounds and outbuilding and 
appurtenances to said premises; vehicles(s) described as 
follows:
(not applicable)
and the persons of (not applicable)
for the following property:

1.  All electronic storage devices, capable of storing,
electronic data regarding the above records, 
including magnetic tapes, disc, (floppy or hard), 
and the complete hardware necessary to retrieve
electronic data including CPU (Central Processing
Unit), CRT (viewing screen, disc or tape drives(s),
printer, software and service manual for operation 
of the said computer, together with all handwritten 
notes or printed material describing the 
operation of the computers  (see exhibit A - search
warrant no.,  1 property to be seized #1)

2.  Human body parts identifiable or belonging to
the deceased, Dora Kent.

3.  Narcotics, controlled substances and other 
drugs subject to regulation by the Drug 
Enforcement Administration.


article of personal property tending to establish the identity 
of person in control of premise, vehicle, storage areas,
and containers being searched, including utility company
receipts, rent receipts, address envelopes and keys and to
SEIZE it if found and bring it forthwith before me or 
this court at the courthouse of this court.
    Good cause being shown this warrant my be served at any
time of the day or night as approve by my initials_________

Time of issuance _______    Time of execution __1600__
Given under my hand and dated this 12th day of January 1988
Thomas E. Hollenhorst  Judge of the Superior Court
    
-------------


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


H. KEITH HENSON, see attachment "A"
                          PLAINTIFF(S)

         vs.

RAYMOND CARRILLO,  see attachment "A"
                      DEFENDANTS(S)

CASE NUMBER

SA CV- 90-021  JSL Rw Rx

SUMMONS

-----------------------------------------------

TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S), your are hereby summoned and required to
file with this court and serv upon
         Christopher Ashworth, Esq.
         GARFIELD, TEPPER, ASHWORTH & EPSTEIN
         A Professional Corporation

Plaintiff's attorney, whose address is:

        1925 Century Park East, Suite 1250
        Los Angeles, California   90067
        (213)  277-1981

an answer to the complaint which is herewith serve upon you
within __20__ days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive
of the day of service.  If you fail to do so, judgment by default 
will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.

Date   Jan. 11, 1990

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

By  MARIA CORTEZ
     Deputy Clerk
 (SEAL OF THE COURT)

;Date      11 Nov 92 12:30:25
From:      Uucp@1:125/555
To:        Tomj@1:125/111
Subject:   Re: ECPA suit, motion to dismiss
Options:   kill-sent private 
;Status:   (read 5 times)
;INTL 1:125/111 1:125/555

From  kumr!cup.portal.com!hkhenson
From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com
To:   tomj@fidosw.fidonet.org
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 12:07:37 PST

Ok folks, as I promised, here are the legal papers filed in the email  
case since the original filing.  Typos are most likely mine.  Comments  
are in [brackets], skipping the first few pages is recommened.  Sorry it  
took so long, I recieved copies of this stuff only yesterday.  
     ---Keith Henson

 
KINKEL, RODIGER & SPRIGGS 
  BRUCE DISENHOUSE 
3393 Fourteenth Street 
Riverside, CAlifornia  92501 
(714) 683-2410 
 
GREINES, MARTIN, STEIN & RICHLAND 
  MARTIN STEIN 
9601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 544 
Beverly Hills, California  90210-5215 
(213) 859-7811 
 
 
Attorney for Defendants County of Riverside, Grover C. Trask, II, Curtis  
R. Hinman, Raymond Carrillo, Robert Spitzer and John V. Mosley y
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
H. KEITH HENSON, et al.,  
 
Plaintiffs, 
 
vs. 
 
Raymond Carrillo, et al., 
 
Defendants. 
 
Case No. SA CV 90-021 JSL (RwRx) 
 
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION  
TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR 
DECLARATORY RELIEF AND 
DAMAGES (Electronic 
Communication Privacy Act of 1986; 
18 U.S.C. Section 2701, et seq.)  PURSUANT
TO RULE 12 (b), F.R.C.P.; 
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 
THEREOF 
 
Date:  April 30, 1990 
Time:  1:00 p.m. 
Courtroom:  No. 2 
Trial Date:  None set 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 
MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND DAMAGES 
(ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT OF 1986; U.S.C. Section 
2701, et seq.)         Page 3 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES    page 5 
 
INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS      page 5 
 
LEGAL DISCUSSION    page 7 
 
 
 
I.    THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS TO ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS 
BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER 
THE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION PRIVACY ACT.    page   7  
 
 
 
II.  EVEN IF THIS COURT WERE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT 
WAS TECHNICALLY DEFICIENT, STILL DEFENDANTS ARE PROTECTED FROM 
SUIT BY THE DOCTRINE OF GOD-FAITH RELIANCE.  THUS THE COMPLAINT 
SHOULD BE ORDERED DISMISS ON THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND.  page 11 
 
 
CONCLUSION   page 13 
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
 
Cases 
 
Burrows v. Superior Court      page 10 
   13 Cal.3d 238  (1974) 
 
Harlow v. Fitzgerald,              page 12 
   457 U.S. 800  (1982) 
 
People v. Dumas,                 page 10
    Cal.3d 871 (1973) 
 
Robison v. Via,                   page   12 
    821 f.2d 913 (2d Cir. 1987) 
 
Tomer v. Gates          page  12 
   811 f.2d 1240 (9th Cir.  1987) 
 
U.S. v. McLaughlin, 
    851 f.2d 283 (9th Cir. 1986) 
 
U.S. v. Michaelian, 
    803 f.2d 1042 (9th Cir. 1986) 
 
U.S. v. Spilotro 
     800 f.2d 959 (9th Cir. 1986) 
 
Statues 
 
18 U.S.C.  Section 2701 
18 U.S.C.  Section 2707 
 
Constitutions 
 
Unites state Constitution, Fourth Amendment 
 
Rules 
 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b) 
United States District Court for the 
Central District of California, 
 
Local Rule 7.6 
Local Rule 7.9 
 
Misc. 
 
1986 U.S Cond Cong Adm Nes, Ann. 
 
TO PLAINTIFFS H. KEITH HENSON, ET AL., AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 
 
      PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 30, 1990 at 1:00 p.m.  or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard in Courtroom 2 of the Honorable J. 
Spencer Letts, Judge of the United states district Court for the Central 
District of California, 751 Santa Ana Boulevard, Santa Ana, California 
92701-4599, defendants County of Riverside, Grover C Trask, II, Curtis R. 
Hinman, Raymond Carrillo, Robert Spitzer, and John V. Mosley will bring on 
for hearing the accompanying Motion to Dismiss complaint for Declaratory 
Relief, and Damages (Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986; 18 
U.S.C. Section 2701, et seq.). 
 
      Defendants' motion will be brought pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the  
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and will be based on this Notice of  
Motion and Motion, the attached memorandum of ports and authorities, and 
on such other and further documentation evidence and argument as may be  
presented in support of this motion.  
      
     PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that under Local Rule 7.6 of the United  
States District Court for the Central District of California, a party  
opposing a motion shall, not later than 14 days before the date set for  
hearing of the motion, serve upon all parties and file with the clerk of  
the court either (a) a brief, but complete memorandum containing a  
statement of all reasons in opposition to said motion, and the point and  
authorities upon which the opposition party will rely, or (b) a written  
statement that he will not oppose the motion.  Under Local Rule 7.9,  
failure to file any required papers may be deemed by the court consent to  
the granting of the motion.   
 
Dated:  March 27, 1990. 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
[boilerplate] 
 
[signed] Martin Stein 
 
[page 3] 
 
MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND DAMAGES 
(ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT OF 1986; 18 U.S.C. Section 
2701, et seq.)  
 
 
     Pursuant to the provisions of rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of  
Civil Procedure, defendants [list], hereby move to dismiss the Complaint  
for declaratory relief and damages on file herein on the following  
separate grounds:  
 
     1.    Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts to state a a
claim for relief against the named defendants herein in that the  
allegations of the Complaint and attached documentation establish as a  
matter of law that defendant did not violate the provision of the ECPA in  
execution a facially valid search warrant.  

     2.    Even assuming that a technical violation of the ECPA has  
properly been alleged by the plaintiffs in the instant case, the named  
defendants herein are entitled to dismissal on the basis of their  
good-faith reliance on the terms of a facially valid search warrant,  
pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. section 2707(d)(1).  
 
      WHEREFORE, defendants [list] and each of the pray as follows: 
 
     1.    That each of their motions to dismiss the Complaint be granted  
without leave to amend;  
 
     2.    The the Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein be  
ordered dismissed as against each of these defendants;  
 
     3.   That plaintiffs be ordered to take nothing from defendants; 
 
     4.   That de