Talk:In re Boucher

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Does the 'sealed' opinion mean no further updates?[edit]

As of 2 February 2009, the article states "Oral arguments were scheduled for April 30, 2008", with a link to a registration-required site. I can find no mention of the case anywhere on the web after February 2008, and certainly no mention of the outcome of the April 2008 oral arguments or subsequent actions. Does the 'sealed motion' appeal mean that no further information on this case will be publicly released? Or is it possible that the case continues to move forward and we simply won't hear anything until another judgment is made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.238.158 (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is marked October 31, 2008, and mentions that according to the PACER docket, the appeal was still pending at that time. --70.104.253.220 (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question on legal terminology[edit]

The case citation[1] says:

"To gain access to drive Z and the files in question, the grand jury has subpoenaed Boucher directing him to: provide all documents, whether in electronic or paper form, reflecting any passwords used or associated with the Alienware Notebook Computer... seized from Sebastien Boucher..."

If the password was never written down on "documents, whether in electronic or paper form", and the subpoena didn't explicitly instruct Boucher to reveal passwords that existed only in his head, was Neidermeier's dismissal of the subpoena strictly required, or could Boucher simply state that no such documents exist? I know the law is having some problems keeping up with technology, but does the wording in the subpoena imply that 'thoughts' or 'memories' count as 'documents' in this legal context? 76.105.238.158 (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result?[edit]

What was the outcome of this case? It sounds like they found child pornography on the computer, but then what happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.167.189 (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boucher case update[edit]

I updated this article to reflect the fact that the legal case has already been closed, with Boucher sentenced to 3 years in prison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.230.8 (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- intgr [talk] 20:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]