United States v. Ropp
United States District Court for the Central District of California
347 F. Supp. 2d 831 (2004)
- Written by Mike Cicero , JD
Facts
Larry Lee Ropp (defendant) installed a device called a KeyKatcher on a cable that connected a computer keyboard used by Karen Beck, an insurance company employee, to a central processing unit (CPU) of Beck’s computer. When Beck typed on her keyboard, the KeyKatcher recorded and stored the electronic impulses traveling through the cable. Then anyone who possessed the KeyKatcher installed on Beck’s system would be able to recover the stored electronic impulses and determine the messages Beck had typed. Because of this KeyKatcher installation, the United States government (plaintiff) indicted Ropp under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a), which criminalized unauthorized interception of electronic communications. Ropp moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that his conduct did not constitute interception of an electronic communication, because Beck’s system was not one that affected interstate or foreign commerce, as required by the ECPA’s definition of an electronic communication. The government opposed the motion and argued that since Beck’s system was connected to a computer network, her system did affect interstate commerce.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Feess, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.