People v. Childs
164 Cal. Rptr. 3d 287
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Terry Childs, DTIS's principal network engineer, controlled the FiberWAN network and its configurations with sole administrative access.
- Childs added remote access capabilities, disabled password recovery on CE devices, stored backups in VRAM, and rewrote core device configurations to run from VRAM, creating a single point of failure.
- He faced discipline and potential dismissal after inspectors uncovered undisclosed adult felonies and misrepresentations on his hiring history.
- In 2008, after disputes over access, Childs was reassigned; at a July 9 meeting, he provided false passwords and refused to disclose backups, leading to his administrative leave and arrest.
- From July 9 to July 21, 2008, DTIS was effectively locked out of FiberWAN, hindering administration and delaying adding new city departments; the city later regained access.
- The court convicted Childs of disrupting or denying computer services to an authorized user under § 502, subd. (c)(5), with a true finding on a related $200,000+ loss enhancement, and restitution totaling about $1.485 million.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 502(c)(5) apply to an authorized employee? | Childs argues only hackers fall under § 502(c)(5). | People contend the statute covers employees misusing authorized access. | Yes; § 502(c)(5) applies to an employee who disrupts or denies services with authorized access. |
| Is § 502(c)(5) unconstitutionally vague as applied to this case? | Childs claims no fair notice of prohibited conduct. | People maintain ordinary understanding and industry context render it definite. | Not unconstitutionally vague; reasonable interpretation with fair notice supports conviction. |
| Was the 'scope of employment' defense properly given and defined to the jury? | Childs argues trial court erred by not providing fuller, technical scope-of-employment definitions. | People claim the instructed scope-of-employment definition, plus the court's clarifications, were correct and adequate. | The instruction combining statutory definition with employer disapproval caveat was proper. |
| Was the admissibility and propriety of adoptive admissions error or harmless? | Childs challenges the instruction allowing adoptive admissions from silence. | People defend the instruction as proper given Ramsay's statements and the context. | Instruction proper; any error would be harmless. |
| Was Juror No. 12 properly dismissed during deliberations? | Childs contends dismissal violated juror rights and required reversal. | People argue good-cause discharge for demonstrable reality of juror misconduct. | Juror No. 12 was properly removed for good cause; no reversal required. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Heitzman, 9 Cal.4th 189 (1994) (statutory construction priority: text, history, case law)
- Chrisman v. City of Los Angeles, 155 Cal.App.4th 29 (2007) (scope of employment and employer liability; apply to civil/tort context)
- Mahru v. Superior Court, 191 Cal.App.3d 545 (1987) (employee misuse vs. employer ownership; dicta on criminal scope)
- People v. Gentry, 234 Cal.App.3d 131 (1991) (computer crime rationale; manipulation of data files)
- People v. Lawton, 48 Cal.App.4th Supp. 11 (1996) (unauthorized access vs. authorized use; relevance to scope)