Ex-Judge Hit Anew With Porn Case

A federal appeals panel on Monday resurrected the child pornography case against former Orange County Judge Ronald C. Kline, ruling that a Canadian computer hacker was not working for the police when he accessed the judge’s hard drives, and therefore did not violate Kline’s 4th Amendment right to privacy.

In an unpublished opinion, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall should not have considered the contact that the hacker, Bradley Willman, had with law enforcement agencies after he searched Kline’s computers. They found that even though there is “ample evidence” to support the contention that Willman was acting with the “intent” to assist law enforcement, there is no evidence that any police agency knew of his search beforehand.

“Searches by private individuals are subject to the restrictions of the 4th Amendment only if the private individual is acting as an instrument or agent of the government at the time of the search,” the panel ruled.

The ruling later noted that “no law enforcement agency involved in the case knew or could possibly have known that Willman was illegally searching computers, let alone acquiesced in the practice.”

Kline’s lead attorney, Paul S. Meyer, said Monday that he was reviewing the decision.

“There are a number of options available, and we are assessing them at this time. One half of the motions on this case still remain to be heard by the trial court,” Meyer said.

Assistant U.S. Atty. Deirdre Eliot, a prosecutor in the case, declined to comment.

Kline, 63, a Superior Court judge, was arrested in November 2001 and charged with seven counts of possessing child pornography in a case that drew national attention and ultimately led him to drop his bid for reelection. He has not spoken publicly about the allegations.

His legal troubles began when Willman, who calls himself a computer cop, hacked into Kline’s home computer by using a “Trojan horse” virus, a program he developed that can track a person’s online activity. Willman purportedly downloaded explicit diary excerpts about the judge’s sexual desires and more than 1,500 pornographic photos of young boys. He 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 and computers there and at the courthouse.

The legal debate has primarily centered on the timing of Willman’s computer “break-in.” Prosecutors have argued that Willman played a limited role in their investigation and worked independently of any police agency. But defense attorneys equated Willman’s invasions with a “21st century wiretap” to secretly monitor, remove and deliver incriminating files to police.

Marshall, ruling in June 2003, suppressed the diary excerpts and photos found on his home and courthouse computers.

She concluded that Willman had acted in the past as an agent for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and U.S. Customs and later worked with Irvine police.