United States v. Valle
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21028, 807 F.3d 508, 40 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1735 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The government fails to prove specific intent for a conspiracy conviction when allegedly 'real' criminal plans discussed online are indistinguishable from admittedly fantastical role-playing. Additionally, under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, an individual 'exceeds authorized access' only by obtaining information they are not entitled to access for any purpose, not by accessing information they are authorized to obtain but for an improper purpose.
Facts:
- Gilberto Valle, a New York City Police Department (NYPD) officer, was an active member of an online sex fetish community, Dark Fetish Network.
- Valle communicated with numerous individuals online, discussing graphic and violent fantasies of kidnapping, torturing, and cannibalizing women he knew, including his wife, Kathleen Mangan.
- After discovering Valle's online activities, Mangan installed spyware on their shared computer, confirmed the disturbing nature of the chats, and reported him to federal authorities.
- The government identified chats between Valle and three individuals as 'real' conspiracies, distinguishing them from chats with 21 other individuals deemed 'fantasy'.
- Among the 'real' plots, Valle and an individual known as 'Moody Blues' discussed a plan to kidnap Kimberly Sauer, a former college classmate of Valle's.
- Valle created a document titled 'Abducting and Cooking Kimberly: A Blueprint' and shared it with Moody Blues, though it contained a mix of accurate and false information about Sauer.
- Valle traveled to Maryland with his wife and child for a pre-planned lunch with Sauer, texting her beforehand that he had driven by her office building.
- Using his NYPD credentials, Valle accessed a restricted law enforcement database to search for Maureen Hartigan, another woman he had discussed kidnapping, for no legitimate law enforcement purpose, violating NYPD policy.
Procedural Posture:
- Gilberto Valle was indicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on one count of conspiracy to kidnap and one count of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
- Following a trial, a jury returned a guilty verdict on both counts.
- Valle filed a post-trial motion for a judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29.
- The district court judge granted the motion for acquittal on the conspiracy to kidnap count, finding the evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The district court judge denied the motion for acquittal on the CFAA count, upholding the jury's conviction.
- The Government appealed the district court's judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy count to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- Valle cross-appealed his conviction on the CFAA count to the same court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
First, does sufficient evidence support a conspiracy to kidnap conviction when a defendant's online discussions of a 'real' plot are substantively and contextually indistinguishable from other online discussions that the government concedes are fantasy? Second, does an individual 'exceed authorized access' under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) by using a computer to access information for a purpose that violates employer policy, even if the individual is otherwise authorized to obtain that information?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Barrington D. Parker
No, as to the conspiracy charge, the evidence is insufficient to prove a genuine agreement or specific intent to kidnap beyond a reasonable doubt. The chats alleged to be 'real' criminal planning are indistinguishable from the voluminous chats the government concedes are pure fantasy, as both contain the same graphic details, fantastical elements, and lack of concrete, real-world preparation. When the evidence gives 'equal or nearly equal circumstantial support to a theory of guilt and a theory of innocence, then a reasonable jury must necessarily entertain a reasonable doubt.' No, as to the CFAA charge, an individual does not 'exceed authorized access' under the CFAA when they misuse their access for an improper purpose. The statutory text is ambiguous, and both interpretations—one based on purpose and one based on which files or data are accessible—are plausible. Faced with this ambiguity, the rule of lenity requires adopting the narrower interpretation, which treats the statute as an anti-hacking law targeting trespass into computer systems or files one is not authorized to enter at all. The government's broader interpretation would criminalize the commonplace activity of violating an employer's computer use policy, such as checking personal email or sports scores at work, a result Congress did not intend.
Dissenting - Judge Straub
Yes, as to the conspiracy charge, the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt, and the majority improperly usurps the jury's role by re-weighing the evidence and drawing inferences in the defendant's favor. The jury reasonably concluded that the plot to kidnap Kimberly Sauer was real based on evidence that did not exist for the 'fantasy' chats, including Valle's creation of a 'blueprint,' his 'surveillance' trip to Maryland, his specific internet searches on how to kidnap someone, and his confirmation to his co-conspirator that he was serious. Yes, as to the CFAA charge, Valle's conduct is proscribed by the plain language of the statute. The CFAA defines 'exceeds authorized access' as obtaining information that one is 'not entitled so to obtain.' Valle was explicitly instructed that he was only entitled to access the police database for official duties. By accessing it for a personal, non-law enforcement purpose, he obtained information he was not 'entitled so to obtain,' clearly violating the statute. The rule of lenity is inapplicable because the statute is not ambiguous, and concerns about its breadth are a matter for Congress, not the courts, to address.
Analysis:
This decision sets a high evidentiary bar for prosecutors seeking to convict individuals for conspiracy based on online communications, requiring a clear and material distinction between fantasy and genuine criminal intent. It establishes that even detailed and disturbing discussions, without more, may not be enough to prove the requisite specific intent. Furthermore, the court's narrow interpretation of the CFAA aligns the Second Circuit with the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, deepening a circuit split on the issue. This holding significantly curtails the statute's scope, protecting millions of employees from potential federal criminal liability for minor violations of workplace computer use policies.
