Computer Crimes Case Study
Whether the defendant's access to a computer system exceeded authorized access under § 18.2-152.3:1.
The court reversed the conviction, finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly exceeded authorized access. The court held that § 18.2-152.3:1 requires proof of intentional unauthorized access — not merely access that exceeded the scope of authorization in a technical sense.
The 'exceeds authorized access' theory of computer crime liability is one of the most contested areas of computer law. D.J. Rivera challenges this theory by arguing that the defendant had a legitimate basis for accessing the system and that any excess was inadvertent rather than intentional. His computer engineering background allows him to understand and explain the technical nuances of access authorization to the court.
This case involves § 18.2-152.3:1 of the Virginia Code. For a full analysis of how this statute applies to your case, consult with D.J. Rivera.
D.J. Rivera applies the lessons of cases like this one to defend clients throughout Richmond and Northern Virginia. Free consultation available 24/7.
Get Your Free Consultation