Was Hacker's actions the behavior of a private person or state ...

[lak]

Was Hacker's actions the behavior of a private person or state action?
 
  A computer hacker (Hacker) in Turkey sent an untraceable e-mail to the Montgomery, Alabama Police Department (MPD), saying that he discovered evidence of child sexual abuse on a computer in Montgomery; he said that the victimizer is a doctor or a paramedic. The anonymous hacker attached an electronic image file of a white male sexually abusing a young white female approximately five years old. MPD officers replied by e-mail, asking Hacker for more information. He sent attached images of a adult white male nude from the waist down fondling the young girl, exposing her genitalia, and depicting clamps connected to a chain attached to the child's labia. Hacker identified the molester's name and provided identifying information including Steiger's Internet service account information with AT&T WorldNet. MPD officers e-mailed Hacker and in response Hacker provided the Internet Protocol (IP) address (a unique address assigned to a particular computer connected to the Internet). An investigator corroborated identifying information about Steiger. Based on this information investigators prepared a search warrant affidavit without mentioning that the source of information was a hacker. A search of Steiger's home produced incriminating evidence that was used to convict him.
  What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

The IJA/ABA standards relating to processing juveniles recommends:
 
  a. no more than two hours between police referral and decision to detain.
  b. no more than 4 hours between police referral and decision to detain.
  c. no more than 24 hours between police referral and decision to detain.
   d. no more than 48 hours between police referral and decision to detain.

[juiceman1987]

Answer to Question 1

Private action  evidence admissible

Answer to Question 2

a

[lak]

Excellent

[deja]

Thanks for the timely response, appreciate it