31

In Oregon, it is legal to break into a car to get a child or domestic animal out in hot weather. Suppose I see a child left in a hot car. I don't know how to break in, so I Google "how to break into a car."

A few months later, the police in another town search my phone for an unrelated reason. They see that I Googled how to break into a car. Could there be any legal consequences for me?

Someone
  • 17,046
  • 10
  • 84
  • 177
  • 1
    As addition to the other answers, conspiracy is a crime in itself. So, if you gang with some people in order to, say, do terrorist bombings, and as part of that you search in the internet about how to prepare bombs, that could be evidence of the crime even if no bomb is ever built. – SJuan76 Jul 05 '22 at 18:56
  • There could be 'consequences' for Googling how to do something benign if it can be proven to have assisted you in the commission of a crime, or obviously if it helps proves a crime was committed. Never write nothin down. – Mazura Jul 06 '22 at 09:11
  • The police in another town settle out of court because of an illegal search and seizure? Or you belong in jail because you don't use a passcode. Or you're in court, with all necessary records subpoenaed, where the only good press is no press. - Has anyone's search history ever had an effect in a court of law? – Mazura Jul 06 '22 at 09:37
  • This scenario seems to imply that the police can just ask for any and all google searches for anyone in an area, which ... isn't generally how warrants work? – T.E.D. Jul 06 '22 at 13:29
  • 1
    It might possibly not be a crime though as points below have stated could be evidence. However, in my own experience trying to fact-check, it could get you flagged by the search engine depending on how they monitor the users which could result in temporary closer observation. – Merlin Jul 06 '22 at 13:59
  • 5
    Using Bing though ... – Azor Ahai -him- Jul 06 '22 at 20:33
  • 3
    I hope there are no consequences for opening this thread!! – Luke Sawczak Jul 08 '22 at 02:53
  • 1
    You should check out https://writing.stackexchange.com/ to see how many questions and answer are there that relate to crime research for books. And I know for a fact that https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/ has massive resources on how to commit crimes for writing stories, including murder. – computercarguy Jul 08 '22 at 15:30
  • @SJuan76 But in this example, there is no conspiracy. Present case law does not support the idea of a conspiracy between a single human and a computer. – A. R. Aug 21 '23 at 20:56
  • @A.R. in many places, for a conspiracy conviction, you do not need to just agree to the crime but you need to have done something in order to do the act. So, speaking to some people about how you should plant a bomb at X is not a conspiracy. But the moment, after that, that you start research about how to build bombs, you could be charged with conspiracy (with the other people, not with the computer). – SJuan76 Aug 21 '23 at 23:16
  • @SJuan76 But that's not the case in OP's example. Your example assumes criminal intent, and OP's disclaims criminal intent. Even if OP's example started with a discussion about breaking into cars to steal, the presumption of criminal intent that would come from such a discussion is rebuttable in most (all?) jurisdictions and would be well rebutted by OP's act of breaking into the car to save the child in the example. – A. R. Aug 22 '23 at 13:08

6 Answers6

37

The Google search is not itself a crime or any other kind of offense.

It could be used as circumstantial evidence that you did something intentionally or with pre-mediation, rather than accidentally, or not at all.

If you can provide an alternative explanation for the search that is plausible, such as the one in the question, and there isn't a close proximity of time, a jury is unlikely to give the search much weight as circumstantial evidence. But ultimately, the weight to give any piece of evidence is for the jury to decide in the context of all of the evidence in the case combined.

ohwilleke
  • 211,353
  • 14
  • 403
  • 716
  • 20
    For inststance you would lose the opportunity to credibly use the defence that you did not know how to break into cars. – Jasen Jul 06 '22 at 08:39
  • "alternative explanation" - like googling all sorts of weird stuff to answer SE questions? IDTS.... It doesn't matter how much noise there is to the signal. If I've ever googled how to kill wife, and I murder my wife, I'm probably SoL. – Mazura Jul 06 '22 at 09:18
  • 4
    While the act of Googling is not a crime in isolation, the context can change here. For example, if OP also affiliates themselves with certain people who also happen to be car thieves, even though OP doesn't actually partake in these crimes and their relation is merely coincidence; their Googling can be construed as membership to a conspiracy, effectively rendering them punished for Googling. While the law may not call Googling a crime in and of itself; in reality it can and will punish someone for doing nothing but Googling in certain circumstances, functionally rendering it a crime. – Flater Jul 06 '22 at 09:18
  • 1
    @Mazura Would it be sufficient on its own to show premeditation? Has that ever been the case that such a determination was made solely on a search history? Because I feel if you have to ask Google "how to kill wife", chances are you left plenty of other evidence of your guilt and premeditation anyways. – AmiralPatate Jul 08 '22 at 09:10
  • @AmiralPatate ("Internet usage has lost its novelty that draws much curiosity and increases ratings for TV programs.") - "Courts have consistently upheld the proposition that circumstantial evidence can be enough to convict, and there have been a number of recent cases where juries have convicted defendants without any direct evidence of their guilt." https://nswcourts.com.au/articles/circumstantial-evidence-in-the-courtroom/ - but, with using a single piece of circumstantial evidence? IDK. The one thing you do need is a body. Peterson was convicted of killing his 3rd wife; not his 4th. – Mazura Jul 08 '22 at 19:18
  • 3
    If you're going to murder you wife, try not to have murdered your previous three wives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Peterson – Mazura Jul 08 '22 at 19:20
  • @Mazura It may be that circumstantial evidence is not enough to convict in Australia, but it is absolutely enough to convict in the U.S., indeed, in the state where I practice, one of the first pattern jury instructions makes clear that this the case. – ohwilleke Jul 08 '22 at 19:53
  • @AmiralPatate "Would it be sufficient on its own to show premeditation?" This is a common way that this evidence is used. – ohwilleke Jul 08 '22 at 19:53
  • 2
    The reason why this would not be illegal is that "you'd be surprised what you can learn if you include the phrase 'I'm writing a book' . There may be a reason to know with some accuracy how to produce an illegal product. If it's critical to a plot, you might know how to do it right, so you can avoid showing it done right. Breaking Bad writers were taught how to cook Meth... but this was so they could avoid showing it to audiences. To quote Mythbusters "This is made with blur. And this has blur. Blur is dangerous. Never mix Blur with Blur!" – hszmv Jul 13 '22 at 12:14
26

If it were a crime to search, we'd all be in jail

A lot of things are crimes if done. However, people often look for information about such things to either understand how not to commit the crime (e.g. googling speed limits), understand what happened (How did ENRON work?), or just plainly, because they write a story and thus need to know the law - or how it was violated. Or just because they are goofballs and want to know about a certain person, case, or method of death. None of this is illegal, as long as you don't act on it.

Internet searches can be evidence

There have been cases, where evidence of a web search was used as circumstantial evidence in addition to other pieces. If you are familiar with Forensic Files, you'll know that in many of the older episodes this pattern appears, and in newer episodes reconstruction of the search history sometimes plays a place.

For example, Season 11, Episode 17, depicts the murder of Sherry Durall. One of the forensics team says about her husband Robert Durall:

Bob's internet search engine revealed he looked for information on all sorts of diabolical schemes. We were shocked to see these searches on things like "poison herbs", "death something", about sedation of people, also about smothering but the most graphic one was actually a search that Durall did on the words "kill spouse".

Robert Durall did appeal his conviction in or before 2003. In the brief the case history and legal history are depicted. In part, I want to point out, that no small part of the discussion is dedicated to the fact, that they used his internet searches as circumstantial evidence, to establish his mens rea and justify first-degree murder.

In its conclusion that "Durall's mental state, including his research and planning of his wife's death, which preceded the murder for months, was qualitatively and quantitatively much more egregious and culpable than that required to prove meditated intent,” the trial court relied upon the following facts: on several occasions during the months be- fore Carolyn's murder, Durall conducted internet research on how to kill his wife;! Durall stated in e-mails to women he met on an internet dating service that he dreaded the prospect of a divorce and he had "a plan" to resolve his unsatisfactory marriage: Durall met with one woman six months before Carolyn's murder and told her that it would be easier if his wife were dead; and Durall made a list of tasks and items needed for the crime. In addition, Durall took elaborate steps to cover up the crime, including hiring a private investigator, cleaning and concealing blood stains from the murder, disposing of his wife's body in a rural area, suggesting to police, friends, Carolyn's co-workers, and family that Carolyn had run off with another man, and concocting an alibi to comport to these facts.

Durall conducted searches using the following terms: “murder;" "kill spouse;" "accidental death;" "smothering:" "+poison —herbs;" "+poison t+herbs —death;" and "sleep +pills +death."

As seen in Wood, the degree of Durall's planning and research distinguishes this case apart from more typical mur- der cases. Moreover, while the defendant in Wood used third parties to explore means of killing her husband, Durall's use of the internet to do the same suggests a similarly culpable mental state.

Qualitatively, Durall's actions are similar to those seen in State v. Vaughn, 83 Wn. App. 669, 924 P.2d 27 (1996), a case cited by both parties.

While the search can be evidence, it also requires other evidence to make a conviction. If there is a different explanation or even evidence that the searching person wasn't even there, that evidence has to be taken into account too.

MJD
  • 107
  • 5
Trish
  • 39,097
  • 2
  • 79
  • 156
  • So it's okay for me to Google "how to break into a car," but if someone breaks into my neighbor's car right after I Google it, my search could be evidence that I was the one who did it? – Someone Jul 05 '22 at 18:42
  • 3
    no, it could be evidence that you might have done it, if you also had the chance to do it, and the other means. – Trish Jul 05 '22 at 18:49
  • 6
    Forensic Files : Anything you search for can and will be used against you in a court of law. – Mazura Jul 06 '22 at 09:06
  • "in many of the older episodes this pattern appears [web search as evidence], and in newer episodes reconstruction of the search history sometimes plays a place" -- are you implying that the role of searches has decreased over time, and if so, why is that? – nanoman Jul 07 '22 at 02:59
  • @nanoman no. I am implying that they don't focus on internet searches in later episodes. – Trish Jul 07 '22 at 09:16
  • 2
    @nanoman Internet usage has lost its novelty that draws much curiosity and increases ratings for TV programs. – xngtng Jul 07 '22 at 13:08
  • 2
    @Someone If you were a suspect, and a search warrant to search your computer was obtained, then searches for how to break into a car could be used as additional evidence of your involvement. However, the police are not able to just look up anyone who may have recently searched for that subject and then charge them. – Michael Richardson Jul 07 '22 at 17:37
  • @Mazura anything you search on Google. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Jul 07 '22 at 19:12
5

the police in another town search my phone for an unrelated reason. They see that I Googled how to break into a car. Could there be any legal consequences for me?

If you're breaking into a car to rescue a child, you're presumably not then leaving them on the side of the road and throwing yourself a hero's parade.

You should be calling the police and documenting what you observed and what you did to resolve the situation-- and handing the child off to responding officers/CPS. This way the perpetrator is held accountable, you clear yourself of suspicion, and the victim is actually secured.

Were any questions to later arise about the nature of your search query, you now have a plausible, defensible, and verifiable reason for having done so.

You need to do this anyway so EMTs can evaluate victim for conditions like heatstroke-- and to cover your own ass against the inevitable counter-claim that you were attempting grand theft auto and kidnapping. This assumes you were not murdered on the spot by the perpetrator in defense of his property.

If you're going to play lawman, then at least act like one and call for backup before intervening. Everything has consequences!

Ivan
  • 161
  • 3
  • 2
    Also, you would probably want to call 911 first, report that you're witnessing a child being in danger, and ask for further instructions. – Dreamer Jul 07 '22 at 11:22
  • @Dreamer And I'd add that calls to emergency services are typically recorded, so if you're actually acting in good faith under instructions, that'll help establish that. – AmiralPatate Jul 08 '22 at 09:01
1

I am a translator and I google such things a lot, when I work on a movie or a TV Series. Imagine you have to translate Breaking Bad series: you will google meth cooking a lot in order to find language-specific terms and slang words. Never had any pbm with that.

user45933
  • 19
  • 1
  • 2
    Welcome to LawSE. Although an interesting anecdote it does not answer the question from a legal perspective. This is Q&A site and not forum. You can see how things works here by taking the Tour and reading through our Help centre - especially the part on How do I write a good answer?. –  Jul 14 '22 at 12:03
-1

If you do it at work, and your employer notices, they might call the cops on you. It happened after the Boston marathon bombing, when six members of a joint anti-terrorism force came to a man's house and interrogated him because he made a Google search about pressure cookers and his employer got concerned: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/08/government-knocking-doors-because-google-searches/312599/

Orv
  • 1
-3

Here's an attempt at using a particular song download as evidence in a murder trial: https://www.news4jax.com/news/2006/06/14/used-to-love-her-download-played-for-jury-in-husbands-murder-trial-2/

Rick Carter
  • 1
  • 1
  • 2
    Welcome to LawSE. Link-only answers are likey to be deleted as being low quality, so you should consider citing and quoting the relevant legislation from a reputable source that addresses the question. You can see how things works here by taking the Tour and reading through our Help centre - especially the part on How do I write a good answer?. –  Jul 14 '22 at 20:25
  • 1
    Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center. – Community Jul 14 '22 at 20:25