42 U.S.C. § 13032
Repealed. Pub. L. 110–401, title V, § 501(b)(1), Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4251
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 2006–2013 · leading case: United States v. Richardson, 607 F.3d 357 (4th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Richardson, 607 F.3d 357 (4th Cir. 2010). “On June 10, 2004, AOL, pursuant to a mandatory reporting requirement set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 13032 (b)(1), 1 reported to the Cyber Tip Line at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (“NCMEC”) that AOL had detected the transmission of child pornography images by…”
United States v. Cameron, 699 F.3d 621 (1st Cir. 2012). “-4- 42 U.S.C. § 13032 (b)(1) (1998) (creating a reporting duty for any entity "engaged in providing an electronic communication service or a remote computing service to the public, through a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce") (current version at 18 U.”
United States v. Baker, 538 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2008). “Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 13032 (b)(1), Yahoo reported this incident to the NCMEC, a national clearinghouse for information about children believed missing or sexually exploited.”
Manzione v. State, 719 S.E.2d 533 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). “In accordance with the mandates set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 13032 (b) (l), 1 the custodian of records at Yahoo! reported the offensive images and its subsequent findings — including the IP address for the originating computer — to the National Center for Missing and Exploited…”
State v. Woldridge, 958 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). “Under 42 U.S.C. § 13032 (b)(1) (2004), any internet service provider that obtains facts from which a violation of federal child pornography laws is apparent must report the facts and circumstances to the Cyber Tip Line at NCMEC.”
James v. State, 717 S.E.2d 713 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). “See former 42 USC § 13032 (b) (l). 2 The affidavit also sets forth facts which show both the reliability and basis of knowledge of the Google Employee.”
Sutton v. State, 737 S.E.2d 706 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). “See former 42 USC § 13032 (since repealed and recodified as 18 USC § 2258A).”
United States v. Guthrie, 184 F. App'x 804 (10th Cir. 2006). “Pursuant to its statutory obligation, see 42 U.S.C. § 13032 (b)(1), Yahoo! reported this activity to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (“NCMEC”).”
United States v. Cameron, 729 F. Supp. 2d 418 (D. Me. 2010). “§ 2258A, under very similar facts, the Fourth Circuit recently held in Richardson that AOL did not act as a government agent when it scanned the defendant’s email communications without a search warrant, discovered images of child pornography, and reported the discovery to NCMEC…”
Eric Michael Sutton v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). “The housekeeper immediately reported her observation to her supervisor, 9 See former 42 USC § 13032 (since repealed and recodified as 18 USC § 2258A).”
Cmc Telecom, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 637 F.3d 626 (6th Cir. 2011). “More recently, the FCC considered the reach of § 222’s “except as required by law” language in making a declaratory ruling on the potential conflict between § 222 and 42 U.S.C. § 13032 . In the Matter of Implementation of the Telecomms.”
United States v. Green, 857 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2012). “The only reported appellate decision which has come to the attention of this court addressing this precise issue concluded that the reporting requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 13032 (the current version of the reporting requirement is set forth in 18 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.