Posted by Orin Kerr:
Hageseth v. Superior Court:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_05_20-2007_05_26.shtml#1179795430
Interesting line from a California state court criminal law decision
handed down today: "it makes no difference that the charged conduct
took place in cyberspace rather than real space."
The case, [1]Hageseth v. Superior Court, involved a Colorado doctor
who participated in an online pharmacy. The doctor, Hageseth, issued
an online prescription to a patient in California, and was then
charged criminally with practicing medicine without a license in
California. Hageseth claimed that he couldn't be charged with a
California crime because he was beyond California's jurisdiction,
bolstered at least in part by what looks like a
dormant-commerce-clause-argument-in-disguise: specifically, that it
would create all sorts of trouble for California to try to regulate
such conduct beyond its borders.
The court disagreed, finding that under traditional principles of
extraterritorial application of criminal law the state of California
could reach the doctor's conduct. The fact that the doctor's conduct
took place "in cyberspace" -- that is, using e-mail and websites --
was irrelevant. Next time maybe the defendant should argue that if you
commit a crime in cyberspace rather than real space, you only have to
go to cyber jail instead of real jail.
Thanks to Tom Watson for the link.
References
1. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A115390.PDF
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
