A federal appeals court on Thursday dismissed the last remaining charge in the New York City “Cannibal Cop” case, ruling that a former New York City police officer couldn’t be punished for his thoughts.
The case that involves Gilberto Valle, a former New York City police officer, has been in the news since 2013, when a jury found him guilty on kidnapping conspiracy charges and a charge of illegally gaining access to the law enforcement databases.
In 2014, an appeals judge threw out the guilty verdict on the kidnapping conspiracy charges, agreeing in part with an argument from Valle’s lawyer that Valle had a constitutional right to fantasize.
The prosecution had successfully argued in the first trial Valle had taken concrete steps to make his online talk about killing and eating women a reality by using a computer database to get data on real-life people he knew directly or indirectly.
But back in 2014, Federal District Court judge Paul G. Gardephe said he didn’t see enough evidence that nearly a year of online talk from Valle translated to a tangible threat.
“This is a conspiracy that existed solely in cyberspace,” Gardephe said. “The nearly yearlong kidnapping conspiracy alleged by the government is one in which no one was ever kidnapped, no attempted kidnapping ever took place, and no real-world, non-Internet-based steps were ever taken to kidnap anyone.”
On Thursday, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York went further, when a divided court ruled upheld Judge Gardephe’s decision and also vacated Valle's conviction for using the database.
The Appeals Court said in its majority decision that federal law doesn’t bar individuals from accessing a computer they are normally authorized to use, even if they do so for an improper purpose.
"This is a case about the line between fantasy and criminal intent," Circuit Judge Barrington Parker said for the majority. "Fantasizing about committing a crime, even a crime of violence against a real person whom you know, is not a crime."
“We are loathe to give the government the power to punish us for our thoughts and not our actions,” Parker said.
“Our construction of the statute impacts many more people than Valle. It will not only affect those who improperly access information from a government computer – a result some readers might find palatable – but also those who improperly access “any protected computer” and thereby obtain information,” Parker wrote.
“While the Government might promise that it would not prosecute an individual for checking Facebook at work, we are not at liberty to take prosecutors at their word in such matters. A court should not uphold a highly problematic interpretation of a statute merely because the Government promises to use it responsibly.”
Judge Chester J. Straub dissented, writing that “this is not a case about governmental intrusion on one’s personal inclinations and fantasies nor is it a case about governmental punishment of one’s thoughts. It is, instead, a jury’s determination of guilt for a conspiracy based on definitive conduct.”
The case had been closely watched not only for the sensational nature of the charges, but for its broader constitutional implications.
In a post-decision statement, Valle’s attorneys called the decision “a very important victory not just for Mr. Valle, who has now been cleared of all criminal charges, but for an open society that treasures freedom of thought and expression.”
There was no comment from the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office. Valle already served a 12-month sentence as the case headed to trial.
