Evidence Barred in Ex-O.C. Judge’s Child-Porn Case

A federal judge on Tuesday threw out most of the key evidence in a high-profile child pornography case against a former Orange County judge, ruling that sexually explicit diary entries and photos were discovered after illegal computer searches by a Canadian hacker who was working for police.

The ruling could undermine much of the case against Ronald C. Kline, whose arrest drew national attention and ultimately resulted in the judge dropping his bid for reelection.

U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall in Los Angeles found that Kline’s 4th Amendment privacy rights were violated when Bradley Willman of Langley, British Columbia, invaded his home computer with a so-called Trojan Horse virus.

In a 12-page decision, Marshall suppressed all the evidence seized from Kline’s home and his home computer, including excerpts from a computer diary about his sexual desires and more than 1,500 pornographic photos of young boys.

“The Court ... finds that Bradley Willman was a government agent at the time of the intrusion, that Willman thought of himself as an agent for law enforcement, and that Willman’s motivation was to act for law enforcement purposes,” Marshall wrote.

Willman, the judge ruled, was acting as a tool for police and -- as with any law enforcement agent -- would be barred from seizing any personal property without a search warrant.

Marshall left open the question of whether material seized from Kline’s courthouse computer will be allowed, asking both sides to return Sept. 15 to discuss that matter.

The ruling marks a pivotal turn in the case and essentially leaves federal prosecutors without evidence in six of the seven federal counts of possession of child pornography. The remaining count pertains to pornographic photos allegedly found on Kline’s courthouse computer.

“It’s a big win for Judge Kline,” said Scott Howe, a Chapman University law professor who has been following the case.

Assistant U.S. Attys. Deirdre Eliot and Greg Staples declined to comment as they left court but have previously said they would appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Paul S. Meyer, Kline’s lead attorney, praised Marshall’s decision as “a well-reasoned opinion” that “accurately reflects the facts and the law.” He declined further comment.

Kline, 62, was in court Tuesday but has not spoken publicly about the allegations since his arrest in November 2001.

Kline has pleaded not guilty to all of the federal pornography charges and to a single state charge that he molested a 14-year-old boy more than two decades ago.

The former judge’s legal troubles began when Willman, who calls himself a computer cop, hacked into Kline’s home computer in May 2000 by using a program he developed that can track a person’s online activity. Willman forwarded his findings to a Colorado-based Internet watchdog group, Pedowatch, which then relayed the information to Irvine police. Willman was tracked down and interviewed by detectives, and warrants were obtained months later that allowed searches of Kline’s home as well as his computers at home and at the courthouse.

Since then, however, the legal debate has centered on Willman’s credibility and whether he was working for law enforcement when he electronically broke into Kline’s computer.

Willman has flip-flopped several times on whether he believed he was working as a government agent. Prosecutors and police said Willman played a limited role in their investigation and worked independently. But defense attorneys equated Willman’s invasions to a “21st century wiretap” used to secretly monitor, remove and deliver incriminating files to police.

In her ruling, Marshall found Willman worked as an agent for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, U.S. Customs and Irvine Police, either directly or using Internet watchdogs as go-betweens. Willman also was offered financial consideration when he was interviewed by investigators and was encouraged to gather more evidence against Kline, the judge wrote. Further, she noted that the computer hacker was promised he would not have to worry about any criminal activity in which he might be engaged.

During open court, Marshall modified her written ruling regarding courthouse computer evidence, backing off a final ruling on whether to throw out that evidence until she hears more arguments from both sides.

Prosecutors contend that Kline cannot challenge police searches of his courthouse computer because it is government property and, under county policy, can be freely monitored for criminal activity.

Howe said the burden has clearly shifted to the government. He said the most damaging evidence came from Willman, who initially said he was working as a law enforcement agent. Whether true or not, Howe said, the statement itself leaves prosecutors hard pressed to prove otherwise. “I think they face an uphill battle,” Howe said.

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Kline case timeline

2001

March: A watchdog group says it is tipped off about an Irvine resident’s photos and computer diary involving child pornography. The tipster has since been identified as Bradley Willman of British Columbia.

July: The group contacts state and county officials. They are told the accusations involve a civil court judge.

Nov. 5: Police search home of Orange County Superior Court Judge Ronald C. Kline.

Nov. 9: Kline is charged with one count of posession of child pornography and placed under house detention.

Nov. 28: Kline faces six additional counts of possession of child pornography. Police say they found 1,500 pornographic images and the judge’s diary.

Dec. 3: Kline pleads not guilty.

2002

Jan 10: After hearing of pornography charges against Kline, an alleged victim, now 37, accuses Kline of molesting him in 1979 when he was a teenager.

March 5: Primary election ballot lists only Kline’s name, but write-in candidate John Adams garners more votes, forcing a runoff.

March 19: Kline pleads not guilty to state molestation charge.

June 20: Kline wins approval to pull his name from ballot.

Aug. 9: Kline pleads not guilty to child sex charges.

2003

March 17: The U.S. District Court in Los Angeles rules that Willman, the hacker, was acting as a law enforcement informant, potentially allowing Kline’s defense team to suppress some evidence against Kline.

March 31: Willman recants previous testimony that he was working for police when he found pornographic images of kids on Kline’s computer.

June 17: Judge rules that Willman was a government informant and rejects evidence gathered in searches of Kline’s home and home computer, jeopardizing six of seven child pornography charges.

Source: Times reports