In Re Property of Forgione
Connecticut Superior Court
908 A.2d 593, 49 Conn. Supp. 613 (2006)
- Written by Jennifer Flinn, JD
Facts
Andrew Hayden was a student at Quinnipiac University. In the fall of 2004, Hayden complained to Charles Griffen, the university’s information security officer, that someone had been improperly using his university email account. The interferences with Hayden’s email account continued through the next spring. In June 2005, Griffen examined the university’s email logs and learned that Hayden’s email account had been accessed by someone from a particular internet protocol (IP) address located off campus. Griffen believed that the IP address originated from the internet service provider Charter Communications. Griffen notified the local police of his findings. Using an affidavit from Griffen, the police sought and obtained a search warrant to access internet customer information from Charter Communications. In response to the warrant, Charter Communications notified the police that the IP address belonged to Perry Forgione. At this point, but not before, Hayden notified Griffen that his ex-girlfriend was Meghan Forgione, who lived at the same address as her father, Perry Forgione. Based again on an affidavit from Griffen that, this time, included Hayden’s comments about Meghan Forgione, the police obtained a search warrant for the Forgione home and seized several computers and other computer equipment. The Forgiones (plaintiffs) petitioned to have their computers and equipment returned to the family and to suppress any evidence found during the search in future criminal proceedings against any family member. Specifically, the Forgiones argued that Griffen’s affidavit in support of the warrant to search the Forgiones’ home contained unreliable double hearsay, the search warrant was defective because the warrant contained no evidence that any items in the Forgione home were used to commit a crime, and the Forgiones had a legitimate privacy interest in their IP address.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rubinow, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.